Roast Sandos selections

[Vader]

So you agree with the criticism in general, just not the specific examples.

I think the selectors get it right about 98% of the time (and yes, that number plucked from nowhere). The selections as discussed in this thread affect the last player selected, about 1 week in 3. We're talking about players on the fringe of the team, not regular best 22 players. The impact of these selections, both in the short & long term is almost completely non-existent.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Pods was just about BOG on the weekend. He wont get dropped and nor he should.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I think the selectors get it right about 98% of the time (and yes, that number plucked from nowhere). The selections as discussed in this thread affect the last player selected, about 1 week in 3. We're talking about players on the fringe of the team, not regular best 22 players. The impact of these selections, both in the short & long term is almost completely non-existent.

Even if we are only talking about the last 1-2 selections each week, that is 22-44 decisions every season. It adds up.

Bickley, Bock, Goodwin, Edwards, McLeod, Rutten, Douglas, Sloane... all of these guys at some stage were the 21st or 22nd player selected in a team. Very few are stars from Day 1.

Getting these decisions right is absolutely criticial to the long term success of the club. Imagine if Blight had backed in Tregenza, Ormond-Allen... ahead of Goodwin and Edwards. To say that the impact of these decisions is non-existent is ridiculous. Getting these decisions right is what sets the best coaches/clubs apart.

 

[Vader]

Even if we are only talking about the last 1-2 selections each week, that is 22-44 decisions every season. It adds up.

Bickley, Bock, Goodwin, Edwards, McLeod, Rutten, Douglas, Sloane... all of these guys at some stage were the 21st or 22nd player selected in a team. Very few are stars from Day 1.

To be fair, the system has changed quite a bit since then - with the biggest single factor being the introduction of the substitute. All of the players named came into the system before the introduction of the sub - and most of them were gone before it as well.

The sub is almost always the last player selected. The logic behind that decision is obvious - you want your best 21 players to be spending as much time on the paddock as possible. Unless there is an injury, the sub rarely plays more than 1/3 of the game, usually closer to 1/4. I think everyone would agree that it's undesirable for a player to be selected as sub for two weeks running, so the selectors have two options - send them back to the SANFL, or bring them into the starting 22. Given that the sub player was the last one selected, it's unlikely that they'll find themselves jumping ahead of the incumbents (unless one of the incumbents has a horrible game, or is unavailable due to injury). This is why the sub player often finds themselves back in the SANFL the following week.

Under the old rules (pre-substitute), players weren't inherently limited in their game time and consequently didn't need to be sent back to the SANFL to maintain form & fitness due to a lack of game time at the AFL level. You're basically trying to compare apples & oranges.

It's probably only every 2nd or 3rd week that the situation arises (as outlined in the OP), with a kid being selected as sub one week and dropped the next. 1 every 3 weeks on average is what I'm working from, not 22-44 selection as you suggested.

Even today, players who are good enough are able to come into the side straight away & hold their position permanently. Brodie Smith, Sloane (who you've already named), Dangerfield, Brad Crouch, Laird, Brown... All of these players were good enough to hold their position from day 1 (Dangerfield's circumstances being somewhat unique). The players who find themselves oscillating between sub & SANFL are the CEY, Lyons & Martin of the world, not exactly players who are ever destined to set the world on fire. Once again, you're comparing apples & oranges.

If you want to compare Lyons, Martin & CEY with someone from 1997/1998, them maybe you should be looking at the likes of Tom Gilligan (3 games in 1997 - the only games of his career), Matthew Collins (6 games in 1997 - including one where he didn't register a single disposal), Sujai Cook (7 games in 1998), Lance Picioane (4 games in 1998, only 2 of them consecutive), Tim Cook (4 games in 1997, 4 in 1998).

Getting these decisions right is absolutely criticial to the long term success of the club. Imagine if Blight had backed in Tregenza, Ormond-Allen... ahead of Goodwin and Edwards. To say that the impact of these decisions is non-existent is ridiculous. Getting these decisions right is what sets the best coaches/clubs apart.

Replacing aging senior players with up & coming youngsters is one thing. Replacing them with players who are barely AFL standard is entirely another. Reilly & JPod should be dropped once Lynch & Henderson become available - these are players worth pumping games into. Lyons, Martin & CEY do not fall into the same category.

 

[Tex200]

Nice (shit) thread.

CEY isn't any good so we can scratch that one. Several others going well. Lyons doesn't earn or demand his spot enough, hence his patchy selection history. Does not work hard enough defensively and offensively when he doesn't have the ball. Trade table for sure.

Very clever planning that would be. When Lyons is in demand from Melbourne we keep him - give him few chances this year just to be really sure he's no good so that next season we can get a really good deal.

Great work

 

[Damp Squarie]

So people are happy with players coming in, getting one game and dropped the next? Sweet. Carry on.

Definitely not...but M Crouch didn't do himself any favours last week in terms of getting another game.
If he is dropped this week I wouldn't be surprised or annoyed. He spectated more the lady on the hill with the pram.

The way he has handled M Crouch has been rubbish. Did nothing to be dropped when he first came into the team, dropped for god knows what reason, and now the kids confidence is down as seen last week. Yeah, great work Sando.

You say he did nothing to be dropped earlier on in the season but there would be good reason...you just don't know what it is. My memory from back then doesn't make me think he justified his position; but c.r.a.f.t.s. is setting in.

Perhaps Sando is picking blokes that haven't burnt the house down in the SANFL and then the step up to AFL level is tooooo much for them.

 

[DD#23]

You say he did nothing to be dropped earlier on in the season but there would be good reason...you just don't know what it is. My memory from back then doesn't make me think he justified his position; but c.r.a.f.t.s. is setting in.

exactly, we all have to look at selections while realising that there is absolutely zero transparency at the AFC.

unless of course Sando feels like tipping off opposition clubs to Danger's bruised ribs or beg them not to tag Smith because he's our most important player.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Pods was just about BOG on the weekend. He wont get dropped and nor he should.

Agreed. While it's probably not in the best interest of the side long term, you can't leave out a player as useful as that. I think he also gives us just that little extra bit of composure as well.

 

[Vader]

exactly, we all have to look at selections while realising that there is absolutely zero transparency at the AFC.

unless of course Sando feels like tipping off opposition clubs to Danger's bruised ribs or beg them not to tag Smith because he's our most important player.

As distinct from every other club's selections?

 

[Mego Red]

Shit thread.

 

[MRB37]

Agreed. While it's probably not in the best interest of the side long term, you can't leave out a player as useful as that. I think he also gives us just that little extra bit of composure as well.

That'd only be true if we had a young kid playing the same position as Pods whose name wasn't Shaun McKernan.

 

[Vader]

So.. how do the other clubs do it? Let's take our moderator's favourite club (Collingwood) and our own arch enemy (Port).

Collingwood
9 players have played 6 games or less.
Martin Clarke - played R1, not seen since
Tim Broomhead - debuted in R13, only had 3 disposals (sub?)
Ben Sinclair - played R1 & R2, not seen since
Ben Kennedy - played R1 & R7, with only 13 disposals combined
Paul Seedsman - played R11-13
Nathan Brown - played R1-2 & R10
Marley Williams - played R7-13
Sam Dwyer - played R2-3, R7-9 (8 was a bye), R12-13
Taylor Adams - played R1-3, R7, R11 & R13

Port Adelaide
10 players have played 6 games or less.
Jake Neade - played R11 (only 1 game for the season)
Andrew Moore - played R11 (only 1 game for the season)
Tom Clurey - debuted in R1, not seen since
Brent Renouf - played R8, not seen since
Paul Stewart - played R7 & R11
Cameron O'Shea - played R4-5, nothing since
Ben Newton - debuted in R7, played again in R12
John Butcher - played R1-3, not seen since
Sam Gray - played R4-6, then R12, then dropped
Kane Mitchell - played R8-13

This is a simple analysis. There may be other reasons (i.e. injury) why some players haven't strung more games together. It's not intended to be an in-depth analysis, just a quick look to see what's happening elsewhere.

What this does show is that Adelaide is not the only club where players come into the side, play 1-2 games, then get dropped. It happens at Collingwood, the club DABM worships above all others. It happens at top-of-the-ladder Port. It's situation normal. The OP is making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

To be fair, the system has changed quite a bit since then - with the biggest single factor being the introduction of the substitute. All of the players named came into the system before the introduction of the sub - and most of them were gone before it as well.

The sub is almost always the last player selected. The logic behind that decision is obvious - you want your best 21 players to be spending as much time on the paddock as possible. Unless there is an injury, the sub rarely plays more than 1/3 of the game, usually closer to 1/4. I think everyone would agree that it's undesirable for a player to be selected as sub for two weeks running, so the selectors have two options - send them back to the SANFL, or bring them into the starting 22. Given that the sub player was the last one selected, it's unlikely that they'll find themselves jumping ahead of the incumbents (unless one of the incumbents has a horrible game, or is unavailable due to injury). This is why the sub player often finds themselves back in the SANFL the following week.

Under the old rules (pre-substitute), players weren't inherently limited in their game time and consequently didn't need to be sent back to the SANFL to maintain form & fitness due to a lack of game time at the AFL level. You're basically trying to compare apples & oranges.

This stuff on the sub is irrelevant. We're talking about the players "just in" the team and the players "just out" of the team. The sub has no impact on this. Unless we were using an older specialist like Giansiracusa in the role, which we're not. We're choosing to put youngsters in the sub role. If we think they need a full game the week after then pick them, don't drop them.

It's probably only every 2nd or 3rd week that the situation arises (as outlined in the OP), with a kid being selected as sub one week and dropped the next. 1 every 3 weeks on average is what I'm working from, not 22-44 selection as you suggested.

Even today, players who are good enough are able to come into the side straight away & hold their position permanently. Brodie Smith, Sloane (who you've already named), Dangerfield, Brad Crouch, Laird, Brown... All of these players were good enough to hold their position from day 1 (Dangerfield's circumstances being somewhat unique). The players who find themselves oscillating between sub & SANFL are the CEY, Lyons & Martin of the world, not exactly players who are ever destined to set the world on fire. Once again, you're comparing apples & oranges.

And that's fine but we're a middle of the road team and have been for a long time - save for that beacon of hope 2012. Yes we've developed some players - a few fish have jumped in the boat with minimal decision making or faith required - but ultimately we have not developed enough quality players to be competitive with the top teams.

So.. how do the other clubs do it? Let's take our moderator's favourite club (Collingwood) and our own arch enemy (Port).

Collingwood
9 players have played 6 games or less.
Martin Clarke - played R1, not seen since
Tim Broomhead - debuted in R13, only had 3 disposals (sub?)
Ben Sinclair - played R1 & R2, not seen since
Ben Kennedy - played R1 & R7, with only 13 disposals combined
Paul Seedsman - played R11-13
Nathan Brown - played R1-2 & R10
Marley Williams - played R7-13
Sam Dwyer - played R2-3, R7-9 (8 was a bye), R12-13
Taylor Adams - played R1-3, R7, R11 & R13

Port Adelaide
10 players have played 6 games or less.
Jake Neade - played R11 (only 1 game for the season)
Andrew Moore - played R11 (only 1 game for the season)
Tom Clurey - debuted in R1, not seen since
Brent Renouf - played R8, not seen since
Paul Stewart - played R7 & R11
Cameron O'Shea - played R4-5, nothing since
Ben Newton - debuted in R7, played again in R12
John Butcher - played R1-3, not seen since
Sam Gray - played R4-6, then R12, then dropped
Kane Mitchell - played R8-13

This is a simple analysis. There may be other reasons (i.e. injury) why some players haven't strung more games together. It's not intended to be an in-depth analysis, just a quick look to see what's happening elsewhere.

What this does show is that Adelaide is not the only club where players come into the side, play 1-2 games, then get dropped. It happens at Collingwood, the club DABM worships above all others. It happens at top-of-the-ladder Port. It's situation normal. The OP is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Why would you choose these two clubs as your examples?

Both fielding teams younger than us on the weekend and are both above us on the ladder

That's right... they're ahead of us now and have more upside.

And even using your own analysis:
Collingwood... 9 players six games or less
Port Adelaide... 10 players
Adelaide... drumroll... 14 players

 

[Jack is Back]

Collingwood... 9 players six games or less
Port Adelaide... 10 players
Adelaide... drumroll... 14 players

As everyone knows, I'm all for playing the KIDS. IMHO our problem is that there is relatively little difference between the current output of our players that would be ranked 15th to 20th on our list down to those ranked in the early thirties. Would there be a big difference between playing Laird or Reilly, Rutten or Hartigan, Martin or Matty Crouch, JPod or Jenkins? In the great tradition of the Adelaide Football Club we select the team that the coaches believe will optimise our chance of victory(and bugger the future). This leads to a whole heap of players having less than 5 games for the season.

The Adelaide Football - We love being ordinary.

 

[DD#23]

As everyone knows, I'm all for playing the KIDS. IMHO our problem is that there is relatively little difference between the current output of our players that would be ranked 15th to 20th on our list down to those ranked in the early thirties. Would there be a big difference between playing Laird or Reilly, Rutten or Hartigan, Martin or Matty Crouch, JPod or Jenkins? In the great tradition of the Adelaide Football Club we select the team that the coaches believe will optimise our chance of victory(and bugger the future). This leads to a whole heap of players having less than 5 games for the season.

The Adelaide Football - We love being ordinary.

there it is

 

[Hank93]

Who has suffered from the selection yo-yo?

Lyons and Martin seem the main two on the list at the moment, but Grigg took a while to get in, McKernan maybe, Luke Thompson never seemed to get a long stint at it.

Thompson is a mystery. He was actually more than a serviceable in the 2012 finals, haven't seen him since.

Still think that to have both Crouch's, Laird, Brown, Talia, Kerridge all playing a regular part in the AFL side has to be acknowledged. Would be nice to get Grigg back in, his form in 2013 was something to get very excited about.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Grigg's 2014 season has perhaps been the most disappointing part of the season.

Although there's probably some other things as well.

 

[Vader]

This stuff on the sub is irrelevant. We're talking about the players "just in" the team and the players "just out" of the team. The sub has no impact on this. Unless we were using an older specialist like Giansiracusa in the role, which we're not. We're choosing to put youngsters in the sub role. If we think they need a full game the week after then pick them, don't drop them.

The sub has made a massive difference to the way that players are brought into the side, for the reasons I previously stated. The selectors don't like naming the same player as sub for two weeks running, because it means that they're probably only going to play 20% of a game two weeks running. The end result is that players are constantly in & out of the side to a much greater degree than they used to be.

As for us putting youngsters in that role, that's the nature of the last player selected. More experienced players are generally in the first 21 picked, or out of the side completely (as Reilly & Porplyzia have discovered this year). Very rarely are they the last player selected - and hence given the green bib. That said, I wouldn't call Martin a "youngster", given that he's in the oldest 1/3 of our playing list.

And that's fine but we're a middle of the road team and have been for a long time - save for that beacon of hope 2012. Yes we've developed some players - a few fish have jumped in the boat with minimal decision making or faith required - but ultimately we have not developed enough quality players to be competitive with the top teams.

None of which has anything to do with getting the kids to wear the bib one week and play in the SANFL the next. It has far more to do with the lack of talent on our team list, partly due to the Tiprat penalties, but mostly due to the club's policy of not bottoming out (and hitting rock bottom during the GC/GWS concession years anyway).

Why would you choose these two clubs as your examples?

Despite your lovely conspiracy theory, I chose those two clubs for a very simple reason - they are the clubs most frequently cited on this board as an example of good player development. You yourself have an unhealthy fetish for the black & white, frequently stating (usually wrongly) that Collingwood would do things differently. As for the wharfies, there seem to be countless Adelaide fans right now who are green with envy at Port Adelaide's current success.

The simple fact is that Adelaide's practice of selecting fringe players one week & dropping them the next is no different to the situation at the clubs most frequently held up as beacons of righteousness.

 

[Hank93]

Grigg's 2014 season has perhaps been the most disappointing part of the season.

Although there's probably some other things as well.

His start to the season was ok, but he was still hardly getting the pill. Last year he averaged 16 disposals and a goal a game (including starting as sub in showdown).

This year he's played the same amount of games (5) and averaged 4 less touches.

 

[DD#23]

Grigg's 2014 season has perhaps been the most disappointing part of the season.

Although there's probably some other things as well.

B. Crouch for mine, I had him earmarked for being our best player by the end of the season and I can barely remember what number he wears. Massive massive disappointment, should be one of our certified match-winners next year but at this rate its almost looking like another development year.

 

[Allefgib]

His start to the season was ok, but he was still hardly getting the pill. Last year he averaged 16 disposals and a goal a game (including starting as sub in showdown).

This year he's played the same amount of games (5) and averaged 4 less touches.

I'm convinced Sando loves giving players very defined roles with a set of priorities and expectations. I think Mitch is struggling with this a bit.

 

[Hank93]

B. Crouch for mine, I had him earmarked for being our best player by the end of the season and I can barely remember what number he wears. Massive massive disappointment, should be one of our certified match-winners next year but at this rate its almost looking like another development year.

Wat

You do realise he's been injured pretty much all year?

 

[Smithalicious]

Where did Grigg play last year when he came in? This year he has been played mainly through the half forward flank.

I remember him dodging and dancing around players on the wing and he looked fantastic! (not saying he was on a wing, maybe he was hff and moving up there, just curious where people think he was played last year?)

 

[Mr_Moogle]

B. Crouch for mine, I had him earmarked for being our best player by the end of the season and I can barely remember what number he wears. Massive massive disappointment, should be one of our certified match-winners next year but at this rate its almost looking like another development year.

He'd been injured during the preseason. When they finally brought him back in, he was clearly underdone and managed to cop another injury before he reached any sort of match fitness. Unlucky but it could of been worse. He didn't do a knee or shoulder or anything so we can be thankful for that.

 

[Jack is Back]

At the start of the season I expected Brad Crouch, Lynchy and Hendo to be three of our key players. Andy Otten has also taken half the season to look like the Andy from last season and our captain is still solving equations in the coaches box.

Mitch Grigg has been disappointing (and I'm not one of the people who bet on him winning the Rising Star), he has never had the zing we saw late last season. On the other hand the development of Kerridge and the emergence of Charlie has exceeded expectations.

We are still 3 or 4 players short of being a contender and I can't see JPod, Truck, Radar, Martin, Wright, Porps or Jaensch being the long term answer. CEY may be the next Myke Cooke but we need to find out whether CEY, Lyons and Atkins (who have all showed better form in the twos than Truck and Otten) have something to offer.