Analysis System, buy in and talent

[jmac70]

Did they need to?

Apart from Shaw and Beams who SHOULDNT have we turned over?

Our 2010/11 list was not build for longevity as much as we thought it was at the time. Topping up with L Brown Jolly Ball Krakouer and Tarrant was the right move at the time but they were never going to last long. On top of that the compulsory turnover from mretirements of OBree Lockyer Fraser Prestigiacomo Medhurst, and a few years after that Davis Johnson Maxwell Didak.

Then you add on Wellingham Dawes Lumumba Thomas etc who were traded and went downhill, suggesting the trade was the right thing.

Plus long term injuries to some key players, N Brown, Maccaffer, Reid and a few named already above.

That pretty much leaves you with a core list of Pendlebury Swan and Blair!!!!

Do you buy the rebuilding narrative that was spun at the end of 2013? Over the past five seasons we have brought in Lynch, Young, Russell, White, Varcoe, Dunn, Mayne and Wells.
Hardly building for the future.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Do you buy the rebuilding narrative that was spun at the end of 2013? Over the past five seasons we have brought in Lynch, Young, Russell, White, Varcoe, Dunn, Mayne and Wells.
Hardly building for the future.

The ins have been mistakes but the list Buckley inherited and the outs have been correct.

Fair enough though I misinterpreted the time horizon you were referring to. But the outs that started around 2013 were based upon neccessity because the cupboard of long term players was pretty bare in the years prior to that. Maybe we didnt think so at the time but just take a look at the full 2010 list and tell me we wouldnt have troubles three or four years down the track. I'm sure if you looked at the full list of Hawthorn or Geelong in its premiership years you'll find some VFL names there that have now turned into solid to excellent footballers. Malthouse sold Buckley a lemon. There was no long termer on that VFL depth list with the arguable exception of Sinclair Thomas and Keeffe who have all had their issues.

Some of the ins have been mistakes and thats the nature of drafting and trading. Clearly some of that hasnt been up to scratch. Not entirely sure who you just named a few at random without much context as some of them were just cheap backup options. As for Mayne, thats the one that remains inexplicable and will so for many years.

If we didnt have to have so many complusory outs then we wouldnt have so many ins to get wrong.

 

[Jasper84]

Have they turned over 45 players in five seasons?

At a glance, I've got 35 players gone from Geelong's 2011 list. Throw in Clarke, Rivers, McIntosh, Stephenson, Hamling, Gore, McCarthy, Simpkin and all the standard rookies/late picks who got moved on in that period, it would be pretty close to 45 or more.

 

[Scodog10]

Did they need to?

Apart from Shaw and Beams who SHOULDNT have we turned over?

Our 2010/11 list was not build for longevity as much as we thought it was at the time. Topping up with L Brown Jolly Ball Krakouer and Tarrant was the right move at the time but they were never going to last long. On top of that the compulsory turnover from retirements of OBree Lockyer Fraser Prestigiacomo Medhurst Anthony Corrie Buckley Rusling Dick (even though they didnt play i the Grand Final you shouldnt underestimate the loss to the list in replacing them all overnight) , and a few years after that Davis Johnson Maxwell Didak. And dead Wood. Dont forget him.

Then you add on Wellingham Dawes Lumumba Thomas etc who were traded and went downhill, suggesting the trade was the right thing.

Plus long term injuries to some key players, N Brown, Maccaffer, Reid and a few named already above.

That pretty much leaves you with a core list of Pendlebury Swan Cloke Goldsack and Blair!!!!......and two of them are now gone and Pendles is also out at the moment.

Poor Blairy is carrying this team

Nope. A club is only required to make 3 senior list changes per annum. The numbers themselves indicate to me a failure in developing a sustainable philosophy on list management. Ours has been one of getting rid of players to fix holes. If those players don't work we get rid of them to fill other holes. It's a case of the snake eating its tail.

There were three cases alone last year:

Goodyear was drafted just three years ago and played senior footy in 2016 yet he was delisted. I had my doubts about the initial draft selection and his chances of making it, but he was 20 at the time so it was a 50/50 call at best. That's early to have your career ended as a national draft selection in the top 50 when you're a solid citizen off field.

Marsh was contracted. It would not have been that difficult to say "we'll give you indefinite leave and in the meantime place you on the rookie list. If you come back great if you don't that's fine too, but either way we believe in you". What that would have done is prevent us from taking Mackie in last years rookie draft who is another likely to be axed within 12-24 months of joining us.

Brown was a RFA and in our leadership group. Match the offer for him and we immediately have no issues with our KPD role so we can focus purely on KPF's moving forward. Instead we're left needing to fill holes this year based on snap decisions last year without any foresight.

I think arguments can be made both for and against past decisions and I'm sure people can say we did well because none of them are performing well at other clubs, but I would argue that those POV are missing the bigger picture of the benefits list chemistry can provide. Overall it points to a wishy washy list management team that aren't quite sure of the best way forward, IMO.

 

[jmac70]

The ins have been mistakes but the list Buckley inherited and the outs have been correct.

Fair enough though I misinterpreted the time horizon you were referring to. But the outs that started around 2013 were based upon neccessity because the cupboard of long term players was pretty bare in the years prior to that. Maybe we didnt think so at the time but just take a look at the full 2010 list and tell me we wouldnt have troubles three or four years down the track. I'm sure if you looked at the full list of Hawthorn or Geelong in its premiership years you'll find some VFL names there that have now turned into solid to excellent footballers. Malthouse sold Buckley a lemon. There was no long termer on that VFL depth list with the arguable exception of Sinclair Thomas and Keeffe who have all had their issues.

Some of the ins have been mistakes and thats the nature of drafting and trading. Clearly some of that hasnt been up to scratch. Not entirely sure who you just named a few at random without much context as some of them were just cheap backup options. As for Mayne, thats the one that remains inexplicable and will so for many years.

If we didnt have to have so many complusory outs then we wouldnt have so many ins to get wrong.

I don't have a problem with the need for a rebuild after the 2013 season, unfortunately it was botched and we now find ourselves with an unbalanced list. Evidenced by the recruitment of Dunn, Mayne and Wells, along with the move of Reid forward.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Gold

You name name

 

[jmac70]

At a glance, I've got 35 players gone from Geelong's 2011 list. Throw in Clarke, Rivers, McIntosh, Stephenson, Hamling, Gore, McCarthy, Simpkin and all the standard rookies/late picks who got moved on in that period, it would be pretty close to 45 or more.

That's a fair point, perhaps they have a stronger culture.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Heath was out of control, we got fair/reasonable compensation.

Beams was a loss once again we got fair/reasonable compensation. Though it does seem he left because he didn't like the the accountability leading teams brought, not the daddy factor. Leading teams has been successfully used by many clubs, so it was his choice in the end. Not saying I like or dislike leading teams.

Marley is hardly a loss, without a kick up the clacker his lifestyle may've still continued at our club. Good early season form, let's see how he goes next year. Still butchers the ball. The only thing I was disappointed with was the comp we received.

As good a summary as I've seen posted.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Goodyear showed little in three years. I doubt a fourth would have made a lot of difference although I agree with you as a general rule that kids need a lot of time and investment,as Collingwood is showing with a good number of players on its young list.

How do you know Marsh wasnt offered a year on the rookie list to reconsider? He wanted to be home for personal and mental health reasons. Its a cheapshot to be blaming the club. No doubt you'll bag them when Fasolo asks to go home for similar reasons?

Brown was offered more money and a longer tenure than was justifable for a bloke with no real skills. We have replaced him short term with Dunn at half the price and only 11 months older, and longer term at the draft with McClarty and Schade and also McCarthy, and also Keeffe coming back although jury is out there of course. Rumours of Brown having an awesome year are greatly exaggerated. Did he improve StKilda?

Not sure any of those examples really paint a picture of too much turnover....

 

[Saintly Viewed]

PS - Sanderson should be first out the door

Interesting, why?
Serious question.

He'd be one I absolutely keep. Very astute, brings fun too appramtly to his players.

(I'm not fussed on his Adelaide rumours, who knows what's true or not)

 

[Jasper84]

That's a fair point, perhaps they have a stronger culture.

Their senior players continue to play at a high standard well into their 30's. It also didn't hurt that when they were out of the 8 and on the slide, they picked up the best player in the comp on the cheap.

 

[jmac70]

Interesting, why?
Serious question.

He'd be one I absolutely keep. Very astute, brings fun too appramtly to his players.

(I'm not fussed on his Adelaide rumours, who knows what's true or not)

He's not as well liked as you think.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I don't have a problem with the need for a rebuild after the 2013 season, unfortunately it was botched and we now find ourselves with an unbalanced list. Evidenced by the recruitment of Dunn, Mayne and Wells, along with the move of Reid forward.

Fair enough, my quote was mainly about the size of the turnover (45 or whatever number was plucked out of the air) .Considering I regret two exits and both of them yielded two decent trades.

As for Dunn Mayne Wells and Reid I only have an issue with one of them.

Wells a punt worth taking considering hes basically filling Swans shoes.
Dunn a bargain.
In fact completely disagree on Reid.....he should have been forward much earlier!!!

And then theres Mayne....grrrrr

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Goodyear showed little in three years. I doubt a fourth would have made a lot of difference although I agree with you as a general rule that kids need a lot of time and investment,as Collingwood is showing with a good number of players on its young list.

How do you know Marsh wasnt offered a year on the rookie list to reconsider? He wanted to be home for personal and mental health reasons. Its a cheapshot to be blaming the club. No doubt you'll bag them when Fasolo asks to go home for similar reasons?

Brown was offered more money and a longer tenure than was justifable for a bloke with no real skills. We have replaced him short term with Dunn at half the price and only 11 months older, and longer term at the draft with McClarty and Schade and also McCarthy, and also Keeffe coming back although jury is out there of course. Rumours of Brown having an awesome year are greatly exaggerated. Did he improve StKilda?

Not sure any of those examples really paint a picture of too much turnover....

i am mystified at the Nathan Brown angst if it is still occurs today.

What we now know, who would now prefer Nathan Brown over Dunn?

I'd take Dunn without hestitation.

I acknowledge Browns contribution, did well, but don't see him being more than ok for St Kilda.
Wish him well, but whether we meant to or not, we got out of jail by getting Dunn.

Marsh? It's a great pity for him and us, but my understanding, for his well being a return home was the healthy consideration.

The most telling point, which is often forgotten, is each club* roughly gets on pick in each 18 picks, year on year.
There really is a lot of chance, so a club can think these five players are perfect for us but only get 1 of them.

*AFL Giants were given well over the odds by loaded picks.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

He's not as well liked as you think.

Perhaps so.

Not what I hear.

But you could be right.

Is it the players and staff that don't like him? Or is it the bigfooty crowd?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

i am mystified at the Nathan Brown angst if it is still occurs today.

What we now know, who would now prefer Nathan Brown over Dunn?

I'd take Dunn without hestitation.

I acknowledge Browns contribution, did well, but don't see him being more than ok for St Kilda.
Wish him well, but whether we meant to or not, we got out of jail by getting Dunn.

Marsh? It's a great pity for him and us, but my understanding, for his well being a return home was the healthy consideration.

The most telling point, which is often forgotten, is each club* roughly gets on pick in each 18 picks, year on year.
There really is a lot of chance, so a club can think these five players are perfect for us but only get 1 of them.

*AFL Giants were given well over the odds by loaded picks.

Part of the angst is spending the FA compo on Wells rather than going to the draft.

Browns had a pretty good year but so has Dunn. Dunn is just a tad short for the big gorillas but gorillas are becoming extinct anyway. And what he lacks there compared to Brown he more than makes up on him in basic football skills....kicking marking handballing leadership and decision making.

And we have also invested in as I said to the medium and long term with Schade and McLarty as well as Keeffe and of course our AA defender Reid still on call. And lets not forget our new discovery, Goldsack at key position.....also just a year or so older than Brown

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Part of the angst is spending the FA compo on Wells rather than going to the draft.

Browns had a pretty good year but so has Dunn. Dunn is just a tad short for the big gorillas but gorillas are becoming extinct anyway. And what he lacks there compared to Brown he more than makes up on him in basic football skills....kicking marking handballing leadership and decision making.

And we have also invested in as I said to the medium and long term with Schade and McLarty as well as Keeffe and of course our AA defender Reid still on call. And lets not forget our new discovery, Goldsack at key position.....also just a year or so older than Brown

Fair points.

Re Wells, glad we got him.
He makes such a difference, genuine difference maker.

Now, if only he'd be fit always

 

[Scodog10]

Goodyear showed little in three years. I doubt a fourth would have made a lot of difference although I agree with you as a general rule that kids need a lot of time and investment,as Collingwood is showing with a good number of players on its young list.

How do you know Marsh wasnt offered a year on the rookie list to reconsider? He wanted to be home for personal and mental health reasons. Its a cheapshot to be blaming the club. No doubt you'll bag them when Fasolo asks to go home for similar reasons?

Brown was offered more money and a longer tenure than was justifable for a bloke with no real skills. We have replaced him short term with Dunn at half the price and only 11 months older, and longer term at the draft with McClarty and Schade and also McCarthy, and also Keeffe coming back although jury is out there of course. Rumours of Brown having an awesome year are greatly exaggerated. Did he improve StKilda?

Not sure any of those examples really paint a picture of too much turnover....

You see this is why people need to fact check before posting. Goodyear got two years because he was drafted in 2014.

Marsh was contracted so whilst he had the power to choose whether he came back or not he had no control over any decision to rookie list him. Brown was offered slightly more, but not enough for us to not bother matching. We were half hearted about keeping him whereas they were keen to bring him in. Given he's played every game in 2017 I'd say it's pretty definitive that he's improved St Kilda due to continuity alone.

In terms of Fas if we trade him I have no problem with that and his issues are extremely different to Marsh's. We were in control of one to a degree and the other not so much. I'd be happy to share with most posters, but not so much in this instance.

I'm curious, why is it that you reply without quoting posts? It makes it very difficult to have a discussion with you and show your opinions to be incorrect.

 

[jmac70]

Fair points.

Re Wells, glad we got him.
He makes such a difference, genuine difference maker.

Now, if only he'd be fit always

Wells is a fine player and has been a joy to watch in black and white. He won't help win our next flag though, and may not even play a finals game for us. Which ironically was why he was recruited.

 

[Scodog10]

i am mystified at the Nathan Brown angst if it is still occurs today.

What we now know, who would now prefer Nathan Brown over Dunn?

I'd take Dunn without hestitation.

I acknowledge Browns contribution, did well, but don't see him being more than ok for St Kilda.
Wish him well, but whether we meant to or not, we got out of jail by getting Dunn.

Marsh? It's a great pity for him and us, but my understanding, for his well being a return home was the healthy consideration.

The most telling point, which is often forgotten, is each club* roughly gets on pick in each 18 picks, year on year.
There really is a lot of chance, so a club can think these five players are perfect for us but only get 1 of them.

*AFL Giants were given well over the odds by loaded picks.

Two points.

The first is that angst is the wrong word. Disappointment is more appropriate. Second it isn't a case of having one or the other, but rather having both Brown and Dunn automatically improves us.

In 2017 it means Goldsack isn't our second key back and Reid is still able to play forward. We also then don't need to find another KPB in the short term with Dunn, Brown, Keeffe, Reid and McLarty all viable options on the list. We also then don't need to acquire Schade who is another that will probably be part of our revolving door list policy within 12 months.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Wells is a fine player and has been a joy to watch in black and white. He won't help win our next flag though, and may not even play a finals game for us. Which ironically was why he was recruited.

That may be so.

But bringing in elite skill level, for essentially nothing (besides salary cap) is still good practice.
He's clear best 22, came in free, role model, prototype of accuracy in disposal.... just fitness matters

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Two points.

The first is that angst is the wrong word. Disappointment is more appropriate. Second it isn't a case of having one or the other, but rather having both Brown and Dunn automatically improves us.

In 2017 it means Goldsack isn't our second key back and Reid is still able to play forward. We also then don't need to find another KPB in the short term with Dunn, Brown, Keeffe, Reid and McLarty all viable options on the list. We also then don't need to acquire Schade who is another that will probably be part of our revolving door list policy within 12 months.

That's very fair points.
Having both etc.
Brown playing continuously, fair call hence for St Kilda.

I'm quietly looking forward to seeing what McLarty can bring to the table next season, will he show enough.
Will he offer glimpses of a long term key back player, etc.

It's one of my fascinations for next season.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

You see this is why people need to fact check before posting. Goodyear got two years because he was drafted in 2014.

Marsh was contracted so whilst he had the power to choose whether he came back or not he had no control over any decision to rookie list him. Brown was offered slightly more, but not enough for us to not bother matching. We were half hearted about keeping him whereas they were keen to bring him in. Given he's played every game in 2017 I'd say it's pretty definitive that he's improved St Kilda due to continuity alone.

In terms of Fas if we trade him I have no problem with that and his issues are extremely different to Marsh's. We were in control of one to a degree and the other not so much. I'd be happy to share with most posters, but not so much in this instance.

I'm curious, why is it that you reply without quoting posts? It makes it very difficult to have a discussion with you and show your opinions to be incorrect.

Yep ok though in that case I'd probably prefer Goodyear to have been on the list this year.... I dont think its good to delist anybody after just two seasons unless theres a really good reason. That said I'm sure Bucks isnt the first to do it and wont be the last. And Goodyear simply wasnt going to make it anyway....where is he anyway?

Generally it doesnt happen although Ceglar is another I can recall. There were certainly rumours about him being a loose cannon though. And he was surplus to ruck needs.

Brown was offered a LOT more ....an extra year more. Perhaps the annual salary wasnt a great increase if any.....but Dunn has come to Collingwood on less than Brown was on so the salary cap pickup is also reasonably significant. Simply put Collingwood didnt match StKildas offer because the tenure wasnt worth it for a player who cant kick run or handball particularly well. We were half hearted quite rightly because his salary and tenure didnt match his abilities. We have missed him just a few times this year and have been better without him (in terms of defensive creativity) a lot more than a few times.

As for failing to quiote, apologies.....despite theories of others on this board theres no conspiracy or tactics on it....juts sheer laziness and assumption that there be nobody else posting before i get my reply posted.

 

[jmac70]

That may be so.

But bringing in elite skill level, for essentially nothing (besides salary cap) is still good practice.
He's clear best 22, came in free, role model, prototype of accuracy in disposal.... just fitness matters

Bringing in a 32 year old with injury concerns on a big contract for three years is not good practice.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Bringing in a 32 year old with injury concerns on a big contract for three years is not good practice.

Definitely a risk but given the next oldest player on the list is 29 and Wells had managed 245 career games to that point, it was a dice worth rolling. Its not as if the club was overloaded with elderly citizens when we picked him up. No problems with Wells. And of course we are not privy to contract and whether for example the third year has a performance clause. Or anything about front loading etc