Should Doughty play on next year?

[Team DJ]

No, he won't be there when we next challenge for the flag. However, the benefits of having him around to tutor & mentor those who will far outweigh the benefits of not having him around.

He is comfortably in our best 18, let alone our best 22. Right now, I'd rate him as the 4th best performed Adelaide player in 2011, behind Thompson, Rutten & Johncock.

Remember that debate we had a couple of weeks ago about VB's position in the side? I argued that he was in our top-10. Nobody could actually come up with a list of players that had him outside our top-12. Doughty is well ahead of VB in the current pecking order.

Sometimes you need to force the older players out, in order to develop the youngsters. We were in that situation 3-5 years ago. We're a loooooong way past that point now, given that Stevens' retirement leaves us with just 7x 100+ game players on our entire list. Right now, there's no benefit at all to dumping players like Doughty who are in form and contributing well. Players like Doughty have a lot to teach the younger kids who surround them, helping the youngsters to develop faster than they would in the absence of mentors like Doughty.

The fact that a player of Doughty's ability is in our top 4 performers this year is a joke in its self.

 

[Wood_Duck]

If you listen the that genius coach of ours this is the most exciting group of young players he's seen (ie. should push for a flag in 3-4 years).

So you are now selectively believeing the coach?

Surely the likes of Thompson Rutten and Captain Van Berlo provide more then enough leadership .

Have you seen any football in the last 2 years?

 

[Vader]

The fact that a player of Doughty's ability is in our top 4 performers this year is a joke in its self.

Not at all. He's finished in the top-5 in our B&F for the last 3 years, including 2009 when our stars were still flying.

It says more about how badly he's underestimated here on BigFooty than it does about anything else.

 

[Big Sledge #32]

Not at all. He's finished in the top-5 in our B&F for the last 3 years, including 2009 when our stars were still flying.

It says more about how badly he's underestimated here on BigFooty than it does about anything else.

I know it's splitting hairs but I think he has had a slightly better year than stiffy. Stiffy has been great but he hasn't adjusted defensively enough. But there really isn't a lot more that he could do.

 

[Team DJ]

So you are now selectively believeing the coach?



Have you seen any football in the last 2 years?

I think that Craigy is the worst coach in the league. But thats what he says so there you go.

And yeah ive seen plenty. Hence the use of the word SHOULD provide leadership. I dont think Doughty should be kept on just because other havent done thier job. Hell we should bring back Bickley to play in that case he was a great leader.

 

[Team DJ]

Not at all. He's finished in the top-5 in our B&F for the last 3 years, including 2009 when our stars were still flying.

It says more about how badly he's underestimated here on BigFooty than it does about anything else.

Hes a good average player thats all. All he ever has and will be. And at 32 the average part is becoming more and more below average its just that the rest of the team are stinking it up too.

 

[moogerfooger]

no way should he continue. have we not learned anything from 2010? Doughty's output will plummet at some point soon and he's starting a long way behind the likes of Macca, Goody and Edwards. you give champions the extra year if they want it but Doughty falls into the same category as Torney - thanks for the memories but 2012 is time to give his spot to Martin/Shaw/Lyons to see what they can do.

 

[Vader]

no way should he continue. have we not learned anything from 2010? Doughty's output will plummet at some point soon and he's starting a long way behind the likes of Macca, Goody and Edwards. you give champions the extra year if they want it but Doughty falls into the same category as Torney - thanks for the memories but 2012 is time to give his spot to Martin/Shaw/Lyons to see what they can do.

The Torney situation was very different to Doughty's.

That was about list management, given the large number of players we had on our list who were rapidly approaching their 30th birthdays. Today, we have Doughty, aged 31 (almost 32), then it's a long way back to Johncock, Rutten & Thompson who are all aged 28.

At the end of 2007, when Torney was delisted, we had 17 players on our list with 100+ games experience. Today, we have just 7 (8 if you count Stevens).

Back then, we had 15 players on our list who had played less than 30 games. Today it's 24.

The team which lost the final to Hawthorn featured just 3 players with less than 30 games (Porplyzia, Griffin & Gill). We badly needed to start getting some fresh blood into the team, because the mega-crash was visible on the horizon. The team which played last week included 10 players with less than 30 games.

The risk being borne by the club, in keeping Doughty on the list, is fairly low. Firstly, there are no signs at all that he's slowing down. He's performing just as well now as he has at any stage in his career. Secondly, Doughty is one player. If he does lose form and drop out of the team, then it's hardly the end of the world. One player can be easily replaced. It's a far cry from last year, when they took on the risks associated with Burton & Hentschel (both with known injury problems), plus the aging bodies of Goodwin, McLeod and Edwards. We lost all 5 players and that really hurt us. Losing one player is a far smaller risk to the team.

The problem before: too few young & inexperienced players developing in the team. The problem now: too many young & inexperienced players developing in the team.

 

[Wood_Duck]

The Torney situation was very different to Doughty's.

That was about list management, given the large number of players we had on our list who were rapidly approaching their 30th birthdays. Today, we have Doughty, aged 31 (almost 32), then it's a long way back to Johncock, Rutten & Thompson who are all aged 28.

At the end of 2007, when Torney was delisted, we had 17 players on our list with 100+ games experience. Today, we have just 7 (8 if you count Stevens).

Back then, we had 15 players on our list who had played less than 30 games. Today it's 24.

The team which lost the final to Hawthorn featured just 3 players with less than 30 games (Porplyzia, Griffin & Gill). We badly needed to start getting some fresh blood into the team, because the mega-crash was visible on the horizon. The team which played last week included 10 players with less than 30 games.

The risk being borne by the club, in keeping Doughty on the list, is fairly low. Firstly, there are no signs at all that he's slowing down. He's performing just as well now as he has at any stage in his career. Secondly, Doughty is one player. If he does lose form and drop out of the team, then it's hardly the end of the world. One player can be easily replaced. It's a far cry from last year, when they took on the risks associated with Burton & Hentschel (both with known injury problems), plus the aging bodies of Goodwin, McLeod and Edwards. We lost all 5 players and that really hurt us. Losing one player is a far smaller risk to the team.

The problem before: too few young & inexperienced players developing in the team. The problem now: too many young & inexperienced players developing in the team.

Good post here. The point is well made.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The team which lost the final to Hawthorn featured just 3 players with less than 30 games (Porplyzia, Griffin & Gill). We badly needed to start getting some fresh blood into the team, because the mega-crash was visible on the horizon.

The team which played last week included 10 players with less than 30 games.

Umm... just on the two highlighted sentences there.

Do you spot anything... glaring?

 

[ruscy002]

Umm... just on the two highlighted sentences there.

Do you spot anything... glaring?

Hehehehe!

 

[Vader]

Umm... just on the two highlighted sentences there.

Do you spot anything... glaring?

Think I summed it up with the last line of my previous post:

The problem before: too few young & inexperienced players developing in the team. The problem now: too many young & inexperienced players developing in the team.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Think I summed it up with the last line of my previous post:

Well... yes.

But what I'm trying to point out was at the end of 2007 "We badly needed to start getting some fresh blood into the team, because the mega-crash was visible on the horizon. " - as you've noted.

And - given your last line - four years on, how successful do you think we have been?

 

[Vader]

Well... yes.

But what I'm trying to point out was at the end of 2007 "We badly needed to start getting some fresh blood into the team, because the mega-crash was visible on the horizon. " - as you've noted.

And - given your last line - four years on, how successful do you think we have been?

I honestly don't think that there was anything that Craig could have done to prevent the mega crash. He may have been able to limit the impact slightly, by (maybe) starting to get games into some of our younger players earlier, but this would probably only be the difference between us being 3-10 and 5-8 right now.

The crash was well & truly visible on the horizon in 2007, but I think that it was entirely unavoidable no matter what he did.

Note that the team has only played 82 games since then. By that stage, it was far too late to start replacing all the 100+ game players that we were already losing.

2004 was probably the only year where he could/should have cut deeper. He made very few changes that year, other than the players like Carey, Burns & Smart who retired. He could have started cleaning out some of Ayres' dead wood there and then, but he chose instead to give the rest of the group 12 months to see who he could & couldn't work with.

What difference would that have made? Probably not a whole lot, given that we already went 5 players deep in that draft (Meesen, Maric, VB, Gibson & Knights). I'm not sure what was left from R5 onwards in that particular draft.

 

[ruscy002]

I honestly don't think that there was anything that Craig could have done to prevent the mega crash.

Traiyde

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I honestly don't think that there was anything that Craig could have done to prevent the mega crash. He may have been able to limit the impact slightly, by (maybe) starting to get games into some of our younger players earlier, but this would probably only be the difference between us being 3-10 and 5-8 right now.

The crash was well & truly visible on the horizon in 2007, but I think that it was entirely unavoidable no matter what he did.

Note that the team has only played 82 games since then. By that stage, it was far too late to start replacing all the 100+ game players that we were already losing.

2004 was probably the only year where he could/should have cut deeper. He made very few changes that year, other than the players like Carey, Burns & Smart who retired. He could have started cleaning out some of Ayres' dead wood there and then, but he chose instead to give the rest of the group 12 months to see who he could & couldn't work with.

What difference would that have made? Probably not a whole lot, given that we already went 5 players deep in that draft (Meesen, Maric, VB, Gibson & Knights). I'm not sure what was left from R5 onwards in that particular draft.

This entire passage is part deflection, part strawman.

Craig is where he is because he has refused to use positions 20-22 in the team to invest games in young players ahead of mid-range players. And that is every single week of his entire tenure.

And it continues, even at 3-10 with the need for rebuilding noted by the club. We had a choice between Brad Symes and Brodie Smith this week. We chose Symes. This sums up our club in a nutshell.

You chose to use the deflect/strawman method because you have been a staunch defender of his selection policy throughout his tenure. And pretending 82 games is nothing doesn't fly either.

 

[Vader]

Traiyde

For whom, using what?

It's too easy to say that he could have traded our way out of the current situation, without providing any specifics as to who we should have traded for - or what price we should have paid.

The best case scenario for trading is Sydney. Right now, they're stuck in the middle of the field. They don't have a lot of young talent, just an awful lot of B-grade players who are doing their bit. They are 7th on the ladder and haven't beaten any of the top-5 this year. I'd argue that they're actually further away from their next premiership than we are, despite our respective ladder positions at present.

This entire passage is part deflection, part strawman.

Craig is where he is because he has refused to use positions 20-22 in the team to invest games in young players ahead of mid-range players. And that is every single week of his entire tenure.

And it continues, even at 3-10 with the need for rebuilding noted by the club. We had a choice between Brad Symes and Brodie Smith this week. We chose Symes. This sums up our club in a nutshell.

You chose to use the deflect/strawman method because you have been a staunch defender of his selection policy throughout his tenure. And pretending 82 games is nothing doesn't fly either.

If you honestly think that playing youngsters in positions 20-22 would make a lick of difference to our current position then you're a bigger fool than I originally took you for.

Our current position has been brought about by virtue of the AFC team losing an unprecedented volume of experienced players. We're not just talking about the big-3 here. Including Stevens & Mattner, we've lost 19x 100+ game players since the end of the 2006 season. There is just no way to make up for losing that amount of experience - none. Short of playing 50 games per season, while everyone else is still playing 22, there is/was no way of ever getting enough experience into our kids to make a difference.

As for Symes vs Smith. I would have liked to see Smith in the team too. However, the fact that he wasn't even named amongst the emergencies tells me that he's currently a fair way off being selected. He had a fair run at the start of the season, before getting injured. I don't think there would be anything to gain by running him into the ground at AFL level.

 

[ruscy002]

For whom, using what?

It's too easy to say that he could have traded our way out of the current situation, without providing any specifics as to who we should have traded for - or what price we should have paid.

The best case scenario for trading is Sydney. Right now, they're stuck in the middle of the field. They don't have a lot of young talent, just an awful lot of B-grade players who are doing their bit. They are 7th on the ladder and haven't beaten any of the top-5 this year. I'd argue that they're actually further away from their next premiership than we are, despite our respective ladder positions at present.

You're talking about the "mega crash" in terms of the exodus of experience. If we traded some 2nd/3rd round DPs for Kennedy and McGlynn (both B+ grade) instead of Sydney, we'd have a couple of guys with experience who are capable of supporting our top tier players, while shifting the focus off a Dangerfield or a Sloane.

Did Sydney know they were getting this quality for nix? I'd suspect not, but you take the same risk in drafting 18 year olds, in fact it's probably less risky considering you have a better idea of what they're capable of.

We are literally 2-3 players of this ilk short on being a more competitive unit - that's what, one more trade for every second year of Craigy's tenure.

Quality is another issue, but I do believe that we have a lot of this locked away in our younger group.

 

[Vader]

You're talking about the "mega crash" in terms of the exodus of experience. If we traded some 2nd/3rd round DPs for Kennedy and McGlynn (both B+ grade) instead of Sydney, we'd have a couple of guys with experience who are capable of supporting our top tier players, while shifting the focus off a Dangerfield or a Sloane.

Did Sydney know they were getting this quality for nix? I'd suspect not, but you take the same risk in drafting 18 year olds, in fact it's probably less risky considering you have a better idea of what they're capable of.

We are literally 2-3 players of this ilk short on being a more competitive unit - that's what, one more trade for every second year of Craigy's tenure.

Quality is another issue, but I do believe that we have a lot of this locked away in our younger group.

Yes, they got those guys for next to nothing - and it wouldn't hurt to have them in our team. However, those players wouldn't be moving us any closer to our next flag - just as they're not moving Sydney any closer to their next premiership.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Doughty is a great player but unfortunatly for him the crows need to pump games into youngsters. that means fitting Martin, Smith, Knights, Porplyzia back into the side and i am sure doughty will be the first to admit that most likely he will be the one that makes way.

 

[marshallfender]

Sorry to harp on about it but it comes back to whomever the coach is.

If it's Neil Craig, you can be certain he will play and 2012 will be groundhog day.

If it's someone knew, with the withdrawal of a few other senior players (Symes, Reilly), this can make room for Doughty and Callahan to stay in the side. But at present, we are going nowhere.

I'm sorry if this is another negative post, but every aspect of the clubs and how it will move forward hinges on who is the coach next year.

For the record - I voted no.

I voted YES,sorry to harp on about it
I think both player and coach have a lot to offer our club..

 

[Adelaide Cows]

Doughty has to play on another year. Yes we are rebuilding but young players need stong seasoned players around the contest to ease the load and give them confindence.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

If you honestly think that playing youngsters in positions 20-22 would make a lick of difference to our current position then you're a bigger fool than I originally took you for.

Righto, so what is Neil (and you) talking about then when he bemoans our <30 game players. These guys having played 50 games wouldn't make any difference? An extra season's worth of experience?

You don't even buy your own tripe.

Our current position has been brought about by virtue of the AFC team losing an unprecedented volume of experienced players. We're not just talking about the big-3 here. Including Stevens & Mattner, we've lost 19x 100+ game players since the end of the 2006 season. There is just no way to make up for losing that amount of experience - none. Short of playing 50 games per season, while everyone else is still playing 22, there is/was no way of ever getting enough experience into our kids to make a difference.

Our turnover of players throughout Neil's tenure is par for the course and not dissimilar to other clubs. As has been shown to you previously.

Just add it to your list of 'choose to ignore' specials, like Craig inheriting a dud list from Ayers.

As for 100 gamers, trading exists so that you don't have to rely solely on the draft to manage your list. We have chosen not to trade for any experienced players and then complain that we don't have any experienced players.

Craig cashed in on inheriting an experienced, finals-regular list. He has taken no steps to replenish the stocks. He stood on the shoulders of the efforts of Cornes, Shaw, Blight and Ayers and has left the cupboard bare for whoever follows him.

As for Symes vs Smith. I would have liked to see Smith in the team too. However, the fact that he wasn't even named amongst the emergencies tells me that he's currently a fair way off being selected. He had a fair run at the start of the season, before getting injured. I don't think there would be anything to gain by running him into the ground at AFL level.

Yep. That's been our attitude all along. Every week, every season. And here we are.

Anyway, you've boxed yourself in so have no choice but to post how you do. You can't criticise any of Craig's previous tactics now because you've had the pom poms out all along. So you have to agree with what he's done to the end, or admit that your last 5 years of posts have been garbage.

And if we go badly on-field now you have to say "oh, it's inevitable... Craig couldn't have done anything different... " Because at the time you have never suggested anything different. Like Craig, you didn't see these years of crap play coming so now have to pretend the actions have not played any role in causing the results.

 

[Lawrst]

Righto, so what is Neil (and you) talking about then when he bemoans our <30 game players. These guys having played 50 games wouldn't make any difference? An extra season's worth of experience?

Spackler 1

Vader -2 (the -2 is for the petrenko hate)

 

[ruscy002]

Yes, they got those guys for next to nothing - and it wouldn't hurt to have them in our team. However, those players wouldn't be moving us any closer to our next flag - just as they're not moving Sydney any closer to their next premiership.

That would depend on who they'd come in for - if it's the younger potential A/B graders then forget it, we wouldn't be going anywhere. However, if they were in our team instead of Reilly and Symes then we would definitely be a few steps closer to our next flag than we are now.