Analysis System, buy in and talent

[jackcass]

Have they turned over 45 players in five seasons?

Hawthorn
2016 - 11
2015 - 9
2014 - 8
2013 - 8
2012 - 9
Total - 45

Geelong
2016 - 9
2015 - 11
2014 - 12
2013 - 7
2012 - 9
Total - 48

Not sure why you'd think list turnover is solely something that happens at Collingwood.

 

[jmac70]

Hawthorn
2016 - 11
2015 - 9
2014 - 8
2013 - 8
2012 - 9
Total - 45

Geelong
2016 - 9
2015 - 11
2014 - 12
2013 - 7
2012 - 9
Total - 48

Not sure why you'd think list turnover is solely something that happens at Collingwood.

Obviously their recruitment has been better than ours.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Hawthorn
2016 - 11
2015 - 9
2014 - 8
2013 - 8
2012 - 9
Total - 45

Geelong
2016 - 9
2015 - 11
2014 - 12
2013 - 7
2012 - 9
Total - 48

Not sure why you'd think list turnover is solely something that happens at Collingwood.

Was looking forward to somebody bothering to do the stats!!

 

[jackcass]

Obviously their recruitment has been better than ours.

If you do some analysis of their squads relative to ours you'll see their turnover has largely been on fringe players earlier but we are starting to see key senior players departing now whereas we lost those key players post 2010 GF and now we're starting to see the fringe player merry-go-round. It all comes down to maintaining a core group and having them healthy.

 

[Scodog10]

Ok. We have poor structures. We are poorly coached. We have serious holes in our list in key positions. Despite that, we've been able to compete, and in some cases defeat, some of the best sides in the league. Our list age profile is relatively young. Some smart drafting and trading can fill our list holes. We won't compete next year because our coaching staff is rubbish. If we actually do a proper cleanout next year like we should have done this year we will improve (provided the correct processes are followed and the right coach is appointed.)

Our issues stem from our footy department, not our list. I don't care about any arguments you make because they'll be wrong. End of debate. That was fun.

Sorry to pull your post away from the trade thread Apex, but I think it holds a lot of relevance to this thread. I also wanted to add a bit more weight to your argument too.

GWS highlight exactly why focusing on talent is not a formula for sustained success. Last night was a perfect example of talent v system and system won easily. Despite missing two of their best 10 players (Smith and Sloane) the Crows never gave them a sniff.

It also highlights to me the risk of getting star struck. Kelly was good, not as effective as usual, but good all the same. Despite being a star his game didn't really impact on GWS' chances of winning because their system was incapable of breaking down Adelaide. I guess the overall point is you can position yourself all you like to bring in top end talent, but if you haven't got it right off field it means nothing. It reflects back to my earlier points in this thread that people overrate the importance of talent.

There's no doubting Adelaide have a talented group, but it's their system that allows them to showcase that talent the way they do. Overall the greatest value, IMO, is building through the draft which we have gone away from recently with 6 of our top 10-12 players traded in (Treloar, Adams, Crisp, Wells, Howe and WHE). The only tangible benefit of really bottoming out is that it spells the end of the current regime. I just don't think it adds the value that many think it does.

 

[Apex36]

Sorry to pull your post away from the trade thread Apex, but I think it holds a lot of relevance to this thread. I also wanted to add a bit more weight to your argument too.

GWS highlight exactly why focusing on talent is not a formula for sustained success. Last night was a perfect example of talent v system and system won easily. Despite missing two of their best 10 players (Smith and Sloane) the Crows never gave them a sniff.

It also highlights to me the risk of getting star struck. Kelly was good, not as effective as usual, but good all the same. Despite being a star his game didn't really impact on GWS' chances of winning because their system was incapable of breaking down Adelaide. I guess the overall point is you can position yourself all you like to bring in top end talent, but if you haven't got it right off field it means nothing. It reflects back to my earlier points in this thread that people overrate the importance of talent.

There's no doubting Adelaide have a talented group, but it's their system that allows them to showcase that talent the way they do. Overall the greatest value, IMO, is building through the draft which we have gone away from recently with 6 of our top 10-12 players traded in (Treloar, Adams, Crisp, Wells, Howe and WHE). The only tangible benefit of really bottoming out is that it spells the end of the current regime. I just don't think it adds the value that many think it does.

Cheers.

It actually astounds me that so many supporters go down the path of 'we need a full rebuild' when we have an absolutely perfect example of a team over achieving within our own walls this century in our 02-03 team. As a collective of talent, looking at other teams of that era, they should really have just been making up the numbers in finals at best, but they were well coached, they all understood their roles and they played for each other.

The fact they were able to almost snatch a premiership from one of the greatest teams of the modern era is a testament to the way they were coached, and I'm actually pretty astounded that Buckley didn't seem to take any real lessons from that given he was a part of it.

It's a shame Ed has such a short memory too. The last time he cleaned out the footy department he had almost instant results. He had a chance to replicate that this year but instead chose to retain the favorite son rather than cut him the way he did the first time.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Obviously their recruitment has been better than ours.

Their top end talent is, absolutely.
Bringing in lake eg master stroke.

Now we will see how they go sans premium draft picks

 

[frizzle]

Sorry to pull your post away from the trade thread Apex, but I think it holds a lot of relevance to this thread. I also wanted to add a bit more weight to your argument too.

GWS highlight exactly why focusing on talent is not a formula for sustained success. Last night was a perfect example of talent v system and system won easily. Despite missing two of their best 10 players (Smith and Sloane) the Crows never gave them a sniff.

It also highlights to me the risk of getting star struck. Kelly was good, not as effective as usual, but good all the same. Despite being a star his game didn't really impact on GWS' chances of winning because their system was incapable of breaking down Adelaide. I guess the overall point is you can position yourself all you like to bring in top end talent, but if you haven't got it right off field it means nothing. It reflects back to my earlier points in this thread that people overrate the importance of talent.

There's no doubting Adelaide have a talented group, but it's their system that allows them to showcase that talent the way they do. Overall the greatest value, IMO, is building through the draft which we have gone away from recently with 6 of our top 10-12 players traded in (Treloar, Adams, Crisp, Wells, Howe and WHE). The only tangible benefit of really bottoming out is that it spells the end of the current regime. I just don't think it adds the value that many think it does.

Yeah good points.
The things we were crying out for in 2018 are better structures & tactics more than list changes. Granted there are weaknesses in the list that need addressing. We had a chance to right the ship & make real change. But we baulked at the opportunity & stayed on the same tack. As far as I can tell the only change to our coaching team is we lost Burns to the hawks & will get a replacement at some stage. So I guess the review must have determined that our FD is doing a cracking job except for Davoren. Ed mentioned he had never been more excited about what's to come in 2018. I must admit I've never been more devoid of hope. A new coach or even a new set of experienced assistants would have have pricked the curiosity. But it seems we will have almost the same coaching & development team as we had in 2017. A new recruit or two wont fix us if our structures are exposed regularly.

 

[Scodog10]

Cheers.

It actually astounds me that so many supporters go down the path of 'we need a full rebuild' when we have an absolutely perfect example of a team over achieving within our own walls this century in our 02-03 team. As a collective of talent, looking at other teams of that era, they should really have just been making up the numbers in finals at best, but they were well coached, they all understood their roles and they played for each other.

The fact they were able to almost snatch a premiership from one of the greatest teams of the modern era is a testament to the way they were coached, and I'm actually pretty astounded that Buckley didn't seem to take any real lessons from that given he was a part of it.

It's a shame Ed has such a short memory too. The last time he cleaned out the footy department he had almost instant results. He had a chance to replicate that this year but instead chose to retain the favorite son rather than cut him the way he did the first time.

It is surprising that he's gone 6 years without realising the benefits of a strong FD, but it's his opportunity to throw away. Let's hope it clicks eventually.

I think the supporters buying into that theory has a lot to do with the lack of quality football people in mainstream AFL media. The prevailing view in that field is that failure is the pre-cursor for success in the industry when the opposite is true and success is always built on the foundation of a strong FD.

We get saturated by personalities that aren't capable of making it within the industry so they comment on it from the outside. When they get the chance to speak to people that know the game they don't even ask the right questions. In the end it means that the guys that actually know the game are derided because their views don't fit the norm (David King and Dermot Brereton).

The perfect example is the SEN breakfast team. They're recognisable names in AFL media circles and between them know as much about the game as the average BF poster except Watson who has to feign ignorance because of Jobe.

We're going down this path with Ed and co. Yeah we had the edge under him when we could just throw money at our FD problems, but now spending is restricted they don't have the football acumen to right the ship. We've been left behind by the better run clubs such as Hawthorn, Sydney, Adelaide and Geelong because they know how to effectively run a football department in 2017 whereas we're stuck in the 00's. Ed was a fantastic president when building brand Collingwood was it and a bit, but the games changed!

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

System

Off field is poor to middling, the Mayne recruitment process the best recent example. Changing the locks so Gubby cant get back into the front door is a good start. Redefining Hines role too. Salary cap management...who owns that?

Dunn and especially WHE were savvy pickups though. Jury out on drafting as we have traded away some first round picks (harder to judge later round picks) and unlucky with Shaz to date. Although many at the time were calling Freeman a mistake...wisely the club cut their losses early whilst he still has reasonably high trade value. Trading an issue for some who beleive we gave away good players too cheap last year, Witts and Williams two key examples. I dont necccessarily buy into that but its part of the system that definitely needs review as we approach this years trade period (Cox for example...whats he worth?).

Coaching staff is hard to judge from outside but some changes have been made there. Fitness guy gone...althoough this year our injury runn was pretty good with only Sinclair out all year and few other long term ijuries

On field I think its improved on 2016 as our percentage testifies. (As an aside.....our worst loss was by just 36 points.....thats gotta be some kind of record for a team that didnt make teh finals!!!!) And in 2017 it improved towards the end of the season as well,with fewer rebound goals conceded and a better first 22 selected, and a better game plan. A really good age mix. Some players reinvented in new roles which is encouraging and others given opportunity to learn and develop despite some criticism from outside... (Langdon Scharenburg Phillips to name a few) Game day tactics still mixed....Bucks still has bad days but perhaps fewer of them? I thought tactically we were quite good in the last month against some quality sides.

BuyIn
Probably the best its been under Buckley. Hes built the team the way he wants it and they seem to like him....although he and Mayne now have to kiss and make up. Players running out the full match every week and no off field dramas and distractions after getting rid of two more players who needed too much babysitting (Cloke and Williams).

Talent
Its pretty good. Plenty of youth and the onus is on them (and Bucks) to go the next step.... Brown Daicos Kirby Langdon Aish Maynard Phillips Crocker Wills Scharenburg McLarty Moore etc.... plus top end talent Grundy Ellliot Pendlebury Treloar Adams and Sidebottom

As mentioned as nauseum we need a few kpps. Perhaps we have one or two of them on the list already (McLarty McCArthy or even maybe Schade...) but need to also draft or trade one in. I'd prefer a defender but not especially fussed.

 

[MarkT2]

GWS highlight exactly why focusing on talent is not a formula for sustained success. Last night was a perfect example of talent v system and system won easily. Despite missing two of their best 10 players (Smith and Sloane) the Crows never gave them a sniff.

Adelaide are an highly talented outfit. They have the best small forward in the game and a very good goal to goal line. They have a quality ruck and midfield and no weak links. The lack of obvious impact of their outs illustrates their depth as much as it does their system.

Compare Collingwood v GWS ladder positions in recent years. Similar system issues but a talent gulf. That's how much difference talent makes. They probably won't win it but they are still in with a reasonable shot.

Talent or system alone won't win you a flag. System is easier to change than talent level. Change the coach and you change the system in a pre season. It's 3 years of quality drafting and trading to change the talent at the levels we need. The reality is until we do both we are going to have the same "next year we might make the 8" discussion that we've had tor the last 3. Even that isn't going to be enough though. We are a poorly run club and that is where it starts. Until we address that we will not go anywhere meaningful. The right coach and quality list management are functions of who makes decisions and how they are made.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I'm not sure how a match review of last nights game has got anything to do with this topic. Adelaide are simply a better team than GWS. Especially at home....a home ground advantage they have earned.

Both teams have sufficient system, buy in and talent. But maybe one has more than the other.

Although we should have beaten both of them during the year. So we may not be that far behind.

 

[Scodog10]

Adelaide are an highly talented outfit. They have the best small forward in the game and a very good goal to goal line. They have a quality ruck and midfield and no weak links. The lack of obvious impact of their outs illustrates their depth as much as it does their system.

Compare Collingwood v GWS ladder positions in recent years. Similar system issues but a talent gulf. That's how much difference talent makes. They probably won't win it but they are still in with a reasonable shot.

Talent or system alone won't win you a flag. System is easier to change than talent level. Change the coach and you change the system in a pre season. It's 3 years of quality drafting and trading to change the talent at the levels we need. The reality is until we do both we are going to have the same "next year we might make the 8" discussion that we've had tor the last 3. Even that isn't going to be enough though. We are a poorly run club and that is where it starts. Until we address that we will not go anywhere meaningful. The right coach and quality list management are functions of who makes decisions and how they are made.

Of course Adelaide are a talented group, but they aren't on the same level as GWS.

No one can compete with GWS on a talent basis. What Adelaide have done though is build the system that allows them to maximise the talent at their disposal. You can't be in the position they are 18 months on from losing a coach and the best player in the game (in the space of 6 months) without having a brilliant system.

The reality for me is that a strong system can cover for a lack of talent, but a strong level of talent can't cover a lack of system. Yes all ingredients are crucial for success, but the emphasis that has been placed on "talent" deficiencies at Collingwood recently is skewed. Especially when we are able to challenge good teams despite our terrible system. You don't do that when you lack talent. We just need to be wise come trade/ draft time.

The problem is I just don't see the end game with this football department. Give them Adelaide's list for example and there's no way they'd have it top 2, IMO. Give our list to the Adelaide FD and it makes the 8...

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Methink Scodog is underrating the talent level at the Crows and overstating the lack of system at the Giants based on one game.

 

[Apples]

Fantastic thread. I'm inclined to think the Buy-In is pretty good. The players enjoy playing for the coach and weren't far off in many games. Matched it with good teams often enough to suggest they understand the game plan.

Systems off field are another matter. Club reviews will bring change and stability and I hope, a strong reality check regarding our list and its deficiencies. We have been a basket-case in the FD.

And that brings me to Talent. I suppose our 2016 recruiting looks poor overall. Mayne has been discussed all year and it's obviously a stuff up of the highest order. Wells also was a failure if we consider the games he actually played. He's probably destined to another similar year in 2018; his body won't get stronger. Recruited because he possessed the type of silky skills we so desperately needed and still need. Dunn was a great get. Why he wasn't played from R1 is one of the great mysteries of 2017. It was obvious over the summer that he possessed the leadership we needed. He could also hit a 5 cent coin from 50 metres, such were his skills. To not play him earlier was one of our really poor decisions for the year, along with the refusal to play Reid forward to assist Moore. Who takes responsibility for these errors?

The game plan is on the money and the players are able to apply it for periods of time; but not for long enough. We were often able to play well against good opposition for 2-3 quarters. The skill level couldn't be maintained for long enough. This is the issue I reckon.
All summer the players were drilled in fast ball movement and bringing the ball through the corridor. A high risk, high reward plan. At training it worked a treat. Under extreme pressure we couldn't maintain it and the lack of polish was obvious.

Kicking skills are very, very ordinary. Too many players gifted easy goals due to lack of kicking ability. We lost 3-4 games this way. The Richmond, StKilda, Footscray games spring to mind. Poor field kicking, particularly inside 50 and dreadful kicking for goal. I'd like to see the stats here. Wells and Dunn stand out in a team that often can't hit the side of a barn. How many times did we win the ball from contested position off half back, only to stuff up upon moving into the forward 50? We did it week after week. We lost the same way pretty much every time. Added to the lack of foot skill was the inability (or refusal) to work both ways so that when we turned it over inside 50, the ball rebounded for quick goals.

Our list is filled with average players and we have not been able to develop the necessary skills since the early 2000s. We must invest in player development; an outstanding, well resourced development team is priority one in my opinion.

 

[Apex36]

Methink Scodog is underrating the talent level at the Crows and overstating the lack of system at the Giants based on one game.

Methinks you're silly if you think he's basing those opinions on a single game. It just happened to be a game that perfectly highlighted what he's talking about. If you think the talent on Adelaide's list is close to the talent on GWS' list you're bonkers. As you are if you think that GWS' structures on field are even close to Adelaide's.

 

[MarkT2]

Of course Adelaide are a talented group, but they aren't on the same level as GWS.

I think the gap is less than you do but importantly the age of the core is different.

The problem is I just don't see the end game with this football department. Give them Adelaide's list for example and there's no way they'd have it top 2, IMO. Give our list to the Adelaide FD and it makes the 8...

I agree we wouldn't be as good as Adelaide with their list - we actually had it (or equivalent). Adelaide may get our list into the 8 but it would be marginal at best. All the system in the world doesn't make Adams & co a good kick, Moore 2 years older and stronger, Reid and Wells any more resilient or give us another KP back and forward.

We are over rating our list based on running a few better teams close. That's been the story of ordinary teams for 100 years. When it matters the good teams generally beat the ordinary teams. People say we should have beaten Adelaide but don't apply the same to the Hawthorn game that we turned around. Take that away and play the Swans after round 6 and were do we finish?

 

[Scodog10]

Methink Scodog is underrating the talent level at the Crows and overstating the lack of system at the Giants based on one game.

Methinks you are wrong and a quick read of the OP would suggest otherwise. It was an opportune time to highlight it on the back of last nights game with Adelaide minus Sloane and Smith embarrassing the boys in orange who collectively had 7 top 5 picks in the line up v Adelaide's 0.

Edit: Also 7 v 4 current or former AA's in GWS's favour last night.

 

[MarkT2]

Methinks you're silly if you think he's basing those opinions on a single game. It just happened to be a game that perfectly highlighted what he's talking about. If you think the talent on Adelaide's list is close to the talent on GWS' list you're bonkers. As you are if you think that GWS' structures on field are even close to Adelaide's.

I agree that Adelaide are better drilled.
Who has the better goal to goal line? I'd say Adelaide.
Jacobs is close to the best pure ruckman in the comp.
GWS still have some emerging talent and have upside. They midfield h=has great raw talent but is the fact they don't run back hard enough due to their system or the fact that these talented kids have never had to do it in the past and collectively don't have it in their game? The latter takes some time to change if it ever is changed.

 

[Apex36]

I agree that Adelaide are better drilled.
Who has the better goal to goal line? I'd say Adelaide.
Jacobs is close to the best pure ruckman in the comp.
GWS still have some emerging talent and have upside. They midfield h=has great raw talent but is the fact they don't run back hard enough due to their system or the fact that these talented kids have never had to do it in the past and collectively don't have it in their game? The latter takes some time to change if it ever is changed.

Adelaide has a talented team no doubt, they wouldn't be in the position they're in if they didn't, but I think you're understating the talent available to GWS. They're stacked on every line. Adelaide may have one or two players on each line that would slot in to the GWS 22, but by and large you'd take GWS' list over Adelaides every day of the week if you were looking at it from a pure talent perspective. And last night they were really made to look second rate by an incredibly well drilled Adelaide side. I'd kill for our list to be that well drilled. We'd be pushing top 4 if we were, even with our glaring holes.

 

[Apex36]

Methinks you are wrong and a quick read of the OP would suggest otherwise. It was an opportune time to highlight it on the back of last nights game with Adelaide minus Sloane and Smith embarrassing the boys in orange who collectively had 7 top 5 picks in the line up v Adelaide's 0.

And that's not even counting pre-selections/mini draft guys I'd assume?

 

[Scodog10]

And that's not even counting pre-selections/mini draft guys I'd assume?

Not including the likes of Haynes, Cameron, Greene, Ward, Corr, Thomlinson, Shaw, Davis and Williams. Who are all either former 1st round picks or AA's.

I seriously want to distance myself from silly comments painting me out as not rating the depth of talent at Adelaide, but pound for pound we'll probably never see a gathering of talent like GWS' again.

 

[Robroy22]

What was that saying my grandfather drummed into me?

"A good team will always beat a team of champions"

He used to talk about our "machine" ('27-30) team as just a collection of cogs all working together, he said Mr. McHale would never allow anyone to be a bighead or to think they were any better than any of their team mates. And when I think about it all the best Collingwood sides I've seen have been just that: GREAT TEAMS.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

A champion team will always beat a team of champions

Unless the team of champions is very very good

Guru Bob

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I agree that Adelaide are better drilled.
Who has the better goal to goal line? I'd say Adelaide.
Jacobs is close to the best pure ruckman in the comp.
GWS still have some emerging talent and have upside. They midfield h=has great raw talent but is the fact they don't run back hard enough due to their system or the fact that these talented kids have never had to do it in the past and collectively don't have it in their game? The latter takes some time to change if it ever is changed.

Some of the Giants established senior players are now getting past it, too. Mumford, Shaw, Griffin, Deledio , obviously Stevie J.....leaving a pretty huge age gap break to the likes of Ward De Boer and Davis in their late 20's . Much of the rest of the list are far younger and just starting to hit the sweet spot in terms of age.

We diverge off topic but its obvious that pure talent isnt enough. You also need talent in all positions and all age groups and in leadership. Which Adelaide have by comparison to the Giants.