List Mgmt. Rookie List Mistake

[cynical]

As far as list management goes I think we have made big mistake in not having a ruck on the rookie list.

We have 4 rucks on our list with only West being durable. In a game where 2 rucks are the norm it seems high risk to only have 4 available.

Having a ruck on the rookie list makes sense for every club, what good are top up midfielders when an elite midfield is needed to win the flag. (if your midfield depth on your senior list is being tested you aren't in flag contention).

As midfielders and small forwards/defenders are a dime a dozen the rookie list should primarily have a backup ruck and a key position player every year and then maybe a smaller player who might make it.

The club should have made the call last year to keep either Stringer, Sheringham or Simpkin and dump the other 2 instead we still have Sheringham on the rookie list and he really isn't needed as backup.

I hope at the end of this year the club doesn't make the same mistake.

 

[The rabbi]

Blicavs is a rookie and has been playing ruck. He is 198 cm as is West and Vardy. But I admit that he is very raw and probably a bit light on for a ruckman. But that is why he is a rookie. Also Ryan Bathie is a rookie who is 198cm and 102kgs and has rucked at VFL level..

How many do you want?

We are in an extraordinary position with Simpson, West, Vardy and McIntosh injured.

 

[cynical]

Blicavs and Bathie are cat B rookies or project players they aren't ready made AFL talent they are longterm prospects who have a small probability of making it.

Having a mature age guy from a state league who is an actual ruckman is a much better option.

 

[JUBJUB]

Blicavs is a rookie and has been playing ruck. He is 198 cm as is West and Vardy. But I admit that he is very raw and probably a bit light on for a ruckman. But that is why he is a rookie. Also Ryan Bathie is a rookie who is 198cm and 102kgs and has rucked at VFL level..

How many do you want?

You do wonder if some people think before they start moaning threads

 

[Vdubs]

Blicavs and Bathie are cat B rookies or project players they aren't ready made AFL talent they are longterm prospects who have a small probability of making it.

Having a mature age guy from a state league who is an actual ruckman is a much better option.

Orren ?

 

[rooie]

simply put we ran out of space. we could have kicked some kids who we think are good value to the curb and brought in a ruckman who is an unknown quantity and we may possibly need, or we could have kept orren and had to get rid of some other young kid....i think they made the right call to stick with youth that are loaded with potential as opposed to keeping an old fella for backup. would love to still have orren, but who would you have sacked to keep him?

 

[topic97]

But then what happens when all 4 are back up & running?
All of a sudden we have 4 quality rucks that would start in almost any other team vying for 2 positions.

Then we will be seeing threads about having too many rucks.

As has been mentioned before, it's an extraordinary position having all 4 down at once - it'll improve!

 

[The rabbi]

But then what happens when all 4 are back up & running?
All of a sudden we have 4 quality rucks that would start in almost any other team vying for 2 positions.

Then we will be seeing threads about having too many rucks.

As has been mentioned before, it's an extraordinary position having all 4 down at once - it'll improve!

Actually T97, it would not surprise me at all.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Then we will be seeing threads about having too many rucks.

That's not a good thing.

Collingwood had too many rucks on their list last year. Between our AFL and VFL teams we simply didn't have room to play them all every weekend, so we had to rotate them, and that inhibited their development (mainly Witts).

 

[you pick one]

Orren ?

Blake ?

 

[cynical]

Orren ?

I think we should have dumped him from the main list and rookied him (if that is allowed).

Delisting probably Sheringham.

 

[The rabbi]

I think we should have dumped him from the main list and rookied him (if that is allowed).

Delisting probably Sheringham.

If you meant Orren as a rookie, it would not happen. Orren had already expressed that he would not be a rookie as he has a family to support.

 

[Vdubs]

If you meant Orren as a rookie, it would not happen. Orren had already expressed that he would not be a rookie as he has a family to support.

dnk that.
He'll get games at Tigerland anyway.

 

[Vdubs]

Blake ?

Don't go there, but yes.

 

[The rabbi]

dnk that.
He'll get games at Tigerland anyway.

Actually, I am not sure of his player status come to think of it.

I will check Richmond's list as he may very well be a rookie.

Edit: Orren is a rookie at Tiger land.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/players/rookie-players

I was under the impression that he stipulated that he would not be rookied by Geelong as he had a family to support and being on a rookie wage would be too difficult.

 

[Vdubs]

Actually, I am not sure of his player status come to think of it.

I will check Richmond's list as he may very well be a rookie.

Edit: Orren is a rookie at Tiger land.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/players/rookie-players

I was under the impression that he stipulated that he would not be rookied by Geelong as he had a family to support and being on a rookie wage would be too difficult.

Where do Tigers VFL affiliate team play home games?

 

[Pivo]

As someone who would have loved to have seen Grundy on our list (and subsequently got shot down by many because it would have meant 5 ruckmen...although I have argued previously that I see Vardy more of a forward and Grundy too will eventually be able to play ruck/forward)...I'm not gonna support you.

And the reason I'm not going to is simple...it is too easy to create threads like this in retrospect.

It is very easy to bag those in charge when all 4 of our rucks are out injured at the same time.

Walker, Blicavs and, possibly Bathie might be able to pinch hit so, while not ideal, it isn't much different if Grundy had been on the list (and Grundy is struggling with an injury himself).

Perhaps the only mistake was not checking to see if Orren would have stayed on as a rookie but, again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[Vdubs]

As someone who would have loved to have seen Grundy on our list (and subsequently got shot down by many because it would have meant 5 ruckmen...although I have argued previously that I see Vardy more of a forward and Grundy too will eventually be able to play ruck/forward)...I'm not gonna support you.

And the reason I'm not going to is simple...it is too easy to create threads like this in retrospect.

It is very easy to bag those in charge when all 4 of our rucks are out injured at the same time.

Walker, Blicavs and, possibly Bathie might be able to pinch hit so, while not ideal, it isn't much different if Grundy had been on the list (and Grundy is struggling with an injury himself).

Perhaps the only mistake was not checking to see if Orren would have stayed on as a rookie but, again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Maybe we did, and he may have said no, but on not getting selected, accepted Tigers rookie offer. Better than nothing he may have surmised.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I think we should have dumped him from the main list and rookied him (if that is allowed).

Delisting probably Sheringham.

Managing five games in his first season on the rookie list...just dump him? I don't think so.

Actually, I am not sure of his player status come to think of it.

I will check Richmond's list as he may very well be a rookie.

Edit: Orren is a rookie at Tiger land.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/players/rookie-players

I was under the impression that he stipulated that he would not be rookied by Geelong as he had a family to support and being on a rookie wage would be too difficult.

I think that was his argument when clubs had asked prior to Geelong (and probably including Geelong). Now that he's proven he's up to it and he'll almost certainly get AFL games (and the match payments that go with those games) it's a different situation. Plus, if he was smart, he would have banked a large amount of his salary last year, which when you add the match payments, would probably have been a lot more than what he was earning in his 9-5.

As for the theory behind the OP: If you put Walker and maybe even Blicavs in the VFL right now, they'd probably look like Simon Madden in the ruck. It's a glorified U21 TAC Cup comp, besides Port Melbourne.

 

[The rabbi]

As someone who would have loved to have seen Grundy on our list (and subsequently got shot down by many because it would have meant 5 ruckmen...although I have argued previously that I see Vardy more of a forward and Grundy too will eventually be able to play ruck/forward)...I'm not gonna support you.

And the reason I'm not going to is simple...it is too easy to create threads like this in retrospect.

It is very easy to bag those in charge when all 4 of our rucks are out injured at the same time.

Walker, Blicavs and, possibly Bathie might be able to pinch hit so, while not ideal, it isn't much different if Grundy had been on the list (and Grundy is struggling with an injury himself).

Perhaps the only mistake was not checking to see if Orren would have stayed on as a rookie but, again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

As always, a sane and thought out post from Pivo.

We are in an extraordinary position with Simpson, West, Vardy and McIntosh injured.

Hindsight has 20/20 vision.

 

[Pivo]

Maybe we did, and he may have said no, but on not getting selected, accepted Tigers rookie offer. Better than nothing he may have surmised.

What can you do? When we start constructing lists based on 'if' then we are in trouble.

Stephenson probably figured he CAN make it at senior level. Richmond came knocking.

That probably was his only way onto another list, I think he knew that.

 

[cynical]

As someone who would have loved to have seen Grundy on our list (and subsequently got shot down by many because it would have meant 5 ruckmen...although I have argued previously that I see Vardy more of a forward and Grundy too will eventually be able to play ruck/forward)...I'm not gonna support you.

And the reason I'm not going to is simple...it is too easy to create threads like this in retrospect.

It is very easy to bag those in charge when all 4 of our rucks are out injured at the same time.

Walker, Blicavs and, possibly Bathie might be able to pinch hit so, while not ideal, it isn't much different if Grundy had been on the list (and Grundy is struggling with an injury himself).

Perhaps the only mistake was not checking to see if Orren would have stayed on as a rookie but, again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I don't agree with Grundy, we have no need for a young inexperienced ruck while someone like Simpson is still largely an unknown. Having a young ruckmen thrown to the wolves is not a good contingency.

Having 5 ruckmen on the senior list is too many however 4 and 1 is a better option. The rookie listed ruckman only goes on the list if there is a longterm injury to 1 of the 4 senior listed rucks.

Hindsight or not it is still correct for the club to have a rookie listed ruckman in the future.

 

[SleazySimon]

But then what happens when all 4 are back up & running?
All of a sudden we have 4 quality rucks that would start in almost any other team vying for 2 positions.

Then we will be seeing threads about having too many rucks.

As has been mentioned before, it's an extraordinary position having all 4 down at once - it'll improve!

Not the clubs fault all our ruckmen are injury prone, but I think dumping orren for McIntosh was always a huge risk considering one was durable and the other had played 7 games in two years. Both blame and Scott admitted it was a gamble. Harsh on orren too, as he was just starting to find his feet at AFL level. He will run out games better with another pre season under his belt.

 

[Turbocat]

Rock and hard place.

We have Blitz on our list , we have 4 mains rucks + one might espect. Walker being given a run in the rucks to help his versatility for the AFL.Add another and we really would be struggling to give them enough time to develop.Balance that with delisting a serviceable big guy like OS and keeping our mid Rookies , probably because they see more of a chance one them could be long term prospects. I suspect they thought OS would not be able to cope with the new ruck rule or have the stamina to ruck 4 quarters.

I don't like the Rookie system. Rookies are expected to train and prepare just like everyone else. They should be on the list, the main , the only list and not have this year to year short term pressure to find a spot. Debating Hamling in another thread , how would he go trying forge a career as a Rookie?

Trial positions should simply be short term contracted players. Imagine right now if Geelong could contract a ruck because of short term need , perhaps one that missed out the last couple of years , bring him to the club and if it works out you play him for an extended period , you then have draft rights at years end. Would that be Banjanin? Someone else , perhaps a kid over looked in the draft like Darcy Fort. Perhaps someone from WA or SA? Currie was rucking in SA last year for eg.

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

May not have been op... but some where whinging on here about Orren not being good enough all last year.

4 is fine. It just so happens that they're injured but West and Hmac are minor. Both will be available round 1 or 2 as well as the rumor that Vardy will be there.

We are now in Free Agency and could poach one that is ready made rather then try a long term project and another kid.