List Mgmt. The age of our list

[Eastern Rangers]

The point I am trying to make is we are never willing to give much up at trade week. Which is why other clubs don't want to deal with us.

I agree our development seems poor. Look at Ebert who was just average for us, went home to Port and is now a very good player. I would suspect he would be struggling if he was still at our club. Wellingham came to us and has gone down hill since he arrived, granted some has been his own fault but he is not played where he should play which is as an outside mid/wing.
The constant though is our club. Once leaders in many areas of the competition but now would safely have us bottom 4 in all areas of club management/football department. Making money the exception, not that doing that is difficult in a two team town.

Wellingham and Ebert haven't changed at all. They're just surrounded by different levels of quality.,

Wellingham at Collingwood was a sub 1 goal, 20 possession half forward. Hardly a blue chip midfielder.

Ebert played HFF at the Eagles and plays Wing and Center at Port. His production has obviously ballooned, but he's still the same flawed player.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Beutbrute]

We'd still have Fyfe. Who'd have been pigeon holed as a forward flanker.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just imagine how much he would be copping it from this board because he can't kick... and he hasn't even won a brownlow!

 

[placebo]

Unfortunately, I think the likes of Kennedy, MacKenzie, Lecras and Hurn are all going to be missing out on premierships, unless there's a rapid, major change to our midfield over the next few years. It's unfortunate and a harsh reality, but we're just too far off in my eyes.

 

[clogged]

Age of list only matters if you're old. Like Freo's situation - it means you can expect a number of retirements in the next few years and that you're probably going to fall off soon.

But if you have a young list, what matters is quality. Western Bulldogs and Port are examples of younger lists than the top clubs where you can quickly tell there are a few players under 23 who have a decent chance at being the best player in the competition (e.g. Bontempelli, Wingard). Young lists don't automatically mature into good ones.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Wellingham and Ebert haven't changed at all. They're just surrounded by different levels of quality.,

Wellingham at Collingwood was a sub 1 goal, 20 possession half forward. Hardly a blue chip midfielder.

Ebert played HFF at the Eagles and plays Wing and Center at Port. His production has obviously ballooned, but he's still the same flawed player.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I never said Wellingham was Blue chip but he was better than average. People need to in fact get off his back a bit because it is not his fault he plays with spuds.
Ebert has improved dramatically since playing with us, yes he also has good players around him but that applies to most players. I do not think Selwood and Masten would be any better if they played around better players, in fact they would probably not get a game in the top 4 sides. Shuey I think would be the star we are hoping for if he played at the Hawks, Sydney, Freo or Port. It aint going to happen with us because he is surrounded by B graders at best.

 

[ziad]

I never said Wellingham was Blue chip but he was better than average. People need to in fact get off his back a bit because it is not his fault he plays with spuds.
Ebert has improved dramatically since playing with us, yes he also has good players around him but that applies to most players. I do not think Selwood and Masten would be any better if they played around better players, in fact they would probably not get a game in the top 4 sides. Shuey I think would be the star we are hoping for if he played at the Hawks, Sydney, Freo or Port. It aint going to happen with us because he is surrounded by B graders at best.

I think the point people are making is that wellingham is one of the spuds and ebert has faults that are exposed in big games - which is why he was dropped from a final at WC.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I think the point people are making is that wellingham is one of the spuds and ebert has faults that are exposed in big games - which is why he was dropped from a final at WC.

Of course everyone is entitled to their view and I can see where some or many think that, what I see is a guy who is played out of position most of the time, he is a dead set wingman/outside mid. He is better than Rosa and Gaff and still can't get a game in his best spot. That is simply bad coaching in my view. Now of course that is looking in from the outside, there may be many reasons why this is so but of course we are never told and if he is in the side I am not sure what reason there could be.
As for Ebert well not sure if it is sour grapes he has left us but we could sure do with a player of his ability right now, no star of course but much better than we currently have running around pretending to be mids/Hf.

 

[The Dodger]

And if we'd got those two picks, and used them on Scully and Morabito?

Puh-lease...it would have been Trengove & Morabito.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It's not always the case, but I think the last 5 seasons have proven that you need a good balance of 29+ & mid-25s, with a couple of young players.

It's been "proven" that you "need" that, has it?

So how many players 29+ do you "need" to win a flag?

I have to say this is news to me.

 

[Dugg]

It's been "proven" that you "need" that, has it?

So how many players 29+ do you "need" to win a flag?

I have to say this is news to me.

Well, they do say you learn something new everyday.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Well, they do say you learn something new everyday.

Indeed.

I can't say I've ever heard anyone make the complaint about their list: "If only we had more blokes 29+!"

 

[Aarick13]

franklin and roughead are 28 this year. and the problem is all these 29+ year olds have all been playing finals for years now, well before they were 29. look at geelong in 07. milburn, harley, king were all 29 or older. hawks 08 crawford and dew, geelong 09 scarlett, mooney, wojcinski, ottens, harley, milburn.
collingwod 2010 had davis and jolly. i think you will find that these older players in these great teams are a bit of an anomaly. they are great players that have had team rejuvenated around them through drafting and trading/free agency and we are still seeing the effects of the expansion teams taking the best players and not letting the bad teams get them and build through the draft.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

It's been "proven" that you "need" that, has it?

So how many players 29+ do you "need" to win a flag?

I have to say this is news to me.

Hawks 2014 - 6 (all over 30) - Lake, Burgoyne, Gibson, Mitchell, Hale, Hodge (plus Sewell missed selection)
Hawks 2013 - 8 - Lake, Guerra, Burgoyne, Gibson, Sewell, Mitchell, Hale, Hodge
Sydney 2012 - 7 - Bolton, Goodes, O'Keefe, Shaw, Mattner, Richards, LRT
Geelong 2011- 9 - Scarlett, Ottens, Wojcinski, Ling, Enright, Podsiadly, Chapman, Corey, Hunt
Collingwood 2010 - 1 - Johnson, with Jolly a month short of his 29th birthday
Geelong 2009 - 6 - Milburn, Harley, Scarlett, Mooney, Wojcinski, Ottens

So basically you need at least 6 unless you want to have to come back for a second week

 

[Dugg]

Hawks 2014 - 6 (all over 30) - Lake, Burgoyne, Gibson, Mitchell, Hale, Hodge (plus Sewell missed selection)
Hawks 2013 - 8 - Lake, Guerra, Burgoyne, Gibson, Sewell, Mitchell, Hale, Hodge
Sydney 2012 - 7 - Bolton, Goodes, O'Keefe, Shaw, Mattner, Richards, LRT
Geelong 2011- 9 - Scarlett, Ottens, Wojcinski, Ling, Enright, Podsiadly, Chapman, Corey, Hunt
Collingwood 2010 - 1 - Johnson, with Jolly a month short of his 29th birthday
Geelong 2009 - 6 - Milburn, Harley, Scarlett, Mooney, Wojcinski, Ottens

So basically you need at least 6 unless you want to have to come back for a second week

Cheers for that, I was too lazy to prove my point...

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So basically you need at least 6 unless you want to have to come back for a second week

Cheers for that, I was too lazy to prove my point...

And this proves that you need a quota of players 29 and older.

Interesting.

Someone needs to let Port know they're kidding themselves.

 

[Natho]

Our drafting is ******ed. Guys like weedon, notte and probably plenty more were picked up way too early. We draft players who are half chances of being good. Clubs must love having the picks after us because we're likely to draft a bloke who should be pick 80 in the first round

 

[Natho]

But of our 4 over 29's apart from lecraa would we actually miss if they retired tomorrow?

 

[Scotland]

I'm not concerned with the age profile of our list.

Quality profile on the other hand...

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It's all garbage this age thing, for over 100 years footy clubs at all levels pick and recruit the best available talent no matter what their age.
AFL clubs have it all wrong in my view, they pick players to win a flag in 6 years instead of every year picking players to be the best they can that year.
Clubs continually bypass seasoned second tier good footballers to go for unknown, untried kids in the hope that they may end up getting a group of kids all together that might win a flag down the track.
In my opinion the AFL is supposed to be the best of the best, it is not a development comp and should not be used as one as it currently is. If I want to watch kids running around I will go watch the colts.
I would love to know the stats on how many of the 100 odd kids drafted every year go on to play more than 50 games because I reckon the percentage would be very low.
There will always be the odd Chris Judd or Tim Watson who come through but they are very rare. There is not much proof in my view that recruiting quantity instead of quality works. AFL clubs are set on recruiting quantity with the hope of finding quality, they waste so much money recruiting this quantity of players when they could find our for free at VFL/WAFL or SANFL level first.
I have always hated the excuses offered up for AFL players, you either can or you can't. Like anything there has to be some adjustment period but the excuses go into nearly their 100th game.
Recruit the best footballers not the best potential according to some suits getting paid in your club.

 

[kranky al]

It's all garbage this age thing, for over 100 years footy clubs at all levels pick and recruit the best available talent no matter what their age.
AFL clubs have it all wrong in my view, they pick players to win a flag in 6 years instead of every year picking players to be the best they can that year.
Clubs continually bypass seasoned second tier good footballers to go for unknown, untried kids in the hope that they may end up getting a group of kids all together that might win a flag down the track.
In my opinion the AFL is supposed to be the best of the best, it is not a development comp and should not be used as one as it currently is. If I want to watch kids running around I will go watch the colts.
I would love to know the stats on how many of the 100 odd kids drafted every year go on to play more than 50 games because I reckon the percentage would be very low.
There will always be the odd Chris Judd or Tim Watson who come through but they are very rare. There is not much proof in my view that recruiting quantity instead of quality works. AFL clubs are set on recruiting quantity with the hope of finding quality, they waste so much money recruiting this quantity of players when they could find our for free at VFL/WAFL or SANFL level first.
I have always hated the excuses offered up for AFL players, you either can or you can't. Like anything there has to be some adjustment period but the excuses go into nearly their 100th game.
Recruit the best footballers not the best potential according to some suits getting paid in your club.

I kind of agree with this - i think the draft age should be more like 22

Would also reinvigorate the wafl, sanfl, etc

College basketball and football in the us is just about as big as the big leagues

Be nice if we could go back a bit.

Would also hopefully mean less young players being thrashed too early.

 

[Popedelio]

You can't really be looking at the age of the player, the games played from the player shows his experience. I remember Simmo said before the game he reckoned the team was younger (in games experience). Since I had time I did a quick calculation

WCE (Age [what they will be turning this year], Games [games played prior to this matchup])
B: Butler (29, 120), McGovern (23, 13), Nelson (19, 0)
HB: Hurn (28, 152), Brown (27, 89), Rosa (29, 151)
C: Gaff (23, 85), Shuey(25, 86), Yeo (22, 40)
HF: Masten(26, 118), LeCras(29, 130), McGinnity(26 ,81)
F: Cripps(23, 50), Kennedy(28, 140), Lycett (23, 22)
FOL: Naitanui (25, 108), Priddis (30, 174), Selwood (25, 122)
I/C: Sheed (20 ,10), Sheppard (24, 59), Wellingham (26, 115), Lamb (19,0)

WBD
B: Wood (26, 65), Roughead (25, 72), Morris (31, 193)
HB: Murphy (33, 271), Talia (22, 16), Boyd (33, 239)
C: Honeychurch (20, 3), Macrae (21, 34), Picken (29, 129)
HF: Dickson (28, 34), Redpath (25, 3), Crameri (27, 79)
F: Stringer (23, 28), Boyd (20, 9), Dahlhaus (23, 71)
FOL: Minson (30, 179), Wallis (23, 56), Bontempelli (20, 16)
I/C: Johannisen (23, 27), Goodes (31, 15) Jong (22, 10), Grant (26, 62)

WCE avg age: 24.95
WCE ave games: 84.77

WBD avg age: 25.5
WBD ave games: 73.2

Well look at that, even though we were pretty much the same age, WBD had 10 less games of experience then us. Just by looking at some of the numbers we can see that the doggies had some old and very experienced players with some young inexperienced players. Where as west coast had a middle aged group with some moderate experience, dashed with some debutants.