The Best Way To Develop The Kids?

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

You mean the club that lost 7 of its last 9 games

Tell me a side that has been a contender while having a large number of inexperienced kids playing big parts to the success. Other than the Baby Bombers of 1993, there isn't one. And even the 1993 Bombers had some young champions in the making in that side.

There is an undeniable trend that has been proven true over decades. A side that relies on a lot of inexperienced youngsters to fill key roles will not be a contender.

Do you honestly think we would have been best team for most of the year if your ruck division was made up of Maric and Meesen. The 2 kids with 0 AFL games between them at the start of this year and inconsistent form in SANFL. Oh and lets not forget that Meesen played SANFL RESERVES last season.

Didn't realise they'd played nine games in a month. Tough gig... I was referring to the two wins out of the last four and the narrow loss to Collingwood.

Do we want to go into the whole ruck debate again? Surely there have been enough threads on this. Clarke played SANFL reserves last season too. We are second on the ladder despite minimal influence from our ruckmen.

What my previous posts were about was young players filling spots on the bench/pockets/midfield rotations for 10-12 games when they are surrounded by our absolute best and most experienced players. How does this translate to being a "big parts to the success"?

 

[Mad Dog]

Just off the topic, what is the difference between having a balanced view and sitting on the fence?

For the purposes of the exercise I will assume this was asked expecting a helpful answer because you honestly don't know....

Sitting on the fence is when you won't, can't, or are too frightened to express an opinion through either ignorance, stupidity, or fear of not being popular.

Having a balanced view is about recognising that after considering all aspects of a topic - it is sometimes not appropriate to box all examples into the same catagory - but instead recognise that there are enough variables in the equation to suggest that there are a number of treatments that could be applied to the issue.

Hope this helps......

 

[Stiffy_18]

Didn't realise they'd played nine games in a month. Tough gig... I was referring to the two wins out of the last four and the narrow loss to Collingwood.

Do we want to go into the whole ruck debate again? Surely there have been enough threads on this. Clarke played SANFL reserves last season too. We are second on the ladder despite minimal influence from our ruckmen.

What my previous posts were about was young players filling spots on the bench/pockets/midfield rotations for 10-12 games when they are surrounded by our absolute best and most experienced players. How does this translate to being a "big parts to the success"?

Ha ha tickle me so I laugh

Why be so selective?! Maybe because it defeats your argument quite convincingly. Is it a conincidence that those Port youngsters are playing better now than they did 2 months ago? And is it also a conincidence that they are playing well when their season is shot?

Oh and I am still waiting for answer to the question in my previous post. I guess I will never be getting it

As for the Clarke playing reserves, that had more to do with the ****wit coaching South Adelaide rather than Clarke's ability to perfrom. Interesting how when he was called back into AFL his form was good. I wonder why?

 

[marvin]

Tell me a side that has been a contender while having a large number of inexperienced kids playing big parts to the success. Other than the Baby Bombers of 1993, there isn't one. And even the 1993 Bombers had some young champions in the making in that side.

The Baby Bombers pretty much all debuted in 1992 or earlier (Fletcher and Olarenshaw excepted) - Hird, Calthorpe, Misiti, Mercuri). And there are other similar teams at the moment.

WCE 2005. As of the Grand Final - Sam Butler, game 26; Adam Selwood, 25; Mark Seaby, 36; Brent Staker, 46; Mark Nicoski, 32 Ashley Hansen, game 2 (as well as Travis Gaspar game 28, Kasey Green game 54 )

At the start of 2004, Hansen, Butler, Nicoski and Seaby had yet to debut; Selwood had played 2 games and Staker 7. Yet West Coast rode them all the way to a finals campaign, followed by a GF (and to within centimetres of a premiership). Meanwhile, there's every chance that (effective 2nd year) Beau Waters, 2nd year player Jaymie Graham, and rookies Shannon Hurn and Matt Rosa may play along side them.

Are Freo contenders yet? They are only a game behind us. David Mundy 38 games. Michael Johnson 36. Steven Dodd 39. Brett Peake 25. Daniel Gilmore 19. Ryan Murphy 22. Luke Webster 24. Ryan Crowley 27.

Do you honestly think we would have been best team for most of the year if your ruck division was made up of Maric and Meesen. The 2 kids with 0 AFL games between them at the start of this year and inconsistent form in SANFL. Oh and lets not forget that Meesen played SANFL RESERVES last season.

This year:

Rucks Biglands, Maric, and Clarke - won 1, lost 0.
Rucks Biglands and Maric - won 6, lost 0.
Rucks Clarke and Maric - won 0, lost 1.
Rucks Biglands and Clarke - won 7, lost 6.

Now maybe Maric + Meesen doesn't win you many games, but Biglands and Maric worked alright. Clarke and Maric may have worked better had Maric not been out on his feet when he got off the bench.

Maybe with Clarke and Maric, or Clarke and Meesen, or Biglands and Meesen (all at different times) the story remains the same Juggle the numbers as suggested earlier - 2 games to Meesen, 12 to Maric, say 18 to Biglands and 10 to Clarke - it's feasible. Biglands is one player who looks shot to pieces right about now, and maybe a spell may have helped him.

And I don't see how you can seriously argue that the highlighted point. Reserves footy last year does not by any stretch mean a player can't be playing AFL footy this year. By that criteria, Bernie Vince doesn't play in round 1, none of Jacob Surjan, Danyle Pearce get rising star nominations, Ivan Maric never gets a look in this year, and Matthew Lokan doesn't play in a Collingwood Grand Final in 2003, just for starters.

 

[Stiffy_18]

And I don't see how you can seriously argue that the highlighted point. Reserves footy last year does not by any stretch mean a player can't be playing AFL footy this year. By that criteria, Bernie Vince doesn't play in round 1, none of Jacob Surjan, Danyle Pearce get rising star nominations, Ivan Maric never gets a look in this year, and Matthew Lokan doesn't play in a Collingwood Grand Final in 2003, just for starters.

Very serious because here are the facts.

Meesen for most part of last year and especially after SOO break has played Norwood reserves and has struggled at that level.

Meesen started this year in the SANFL seniors as a back up ruckman to Tim Nicholas.

The poster I was replying to was suggesting we started this season off (as in round 1, 2006) with Maric and Meesen as our ruckman. Do you think that would have been a smart move based on the facts I just posted?

Meesen couldn't crack a game in the PS cup and he should have been a significant part of our ruck division in round 1?

Surely you can see how dumb and unreasonable that would have been. At that stage he wasn't even Norwood's # 1 ruckman.

OH and on that ruck combination and win/loss ratio, who exactly were our opponents when Maric and Biglands were apparently unstoppable. Wasn't the train of thought here on this very board that it was a good time to give Maric extended time because the opposition we were playing was weak and limited ruck division

 

[Drummond]

Last year Meesen played 9 league games (kicking 7 goals while swapping between forward and ruck), 5 reserves; and missed the last 9 matches due to a knee injury.

In the last 2 weeks he has had approximately 33 possessions, 34 hitouts, 12 marks, 5 tackles and a goal.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Last year Meesen played 9 league games (kicking 7 goals while swapping between forward and ruck), 5 reserves; and missed the last 9 matches due to a knee injury.

In the last 2 weeks he has had approximately 33 possessions, 34 hitouts, 12 marks, 5 tackles and a goal.

Meesen started off really well in the seniors last year before he lost his confidence and was dropped to reserves where he injured his knee eventually.

Your ex coach even admitted that he destroyed Meesen's confidence by playing him the the forward pocket rather than in the ruck.

 

[marvin]

The poster I was replying to was suggesting we started this season off (as in round 1, 2006) with Maric and Meesen as our ruckman. Do you think that would have been a smart move based on the facts I just posted?

I don't think that Carl was saying that at all.

His post said 10-12 matches into Maric, 10-12 into Meesen - not 22 into each. You could do that by starting round 1 with say, Biglands and Maric, swap Maric and Meesen over at some stage, maybe go with 3 ruckmen rotating centre square - bench - goalsquare for more than the 1 game we did.

Maric and Meesen round 1 may not have been smart, but Biglands and Maric may not have been dumb either.

OH and on that ruck combination and win/loss ratio, who exactly were our opponents when Maric and Biglands were apparently unstoppable. Wasn't the train of thought here on this very board that it was a good time to give Maric extended time because the opposition we were playing was weak and limited ruck division

The "weak ruck combos" Maric went up against included Spider Everitt, Steven King, Brad Ottens (all All-Australians) and premiership ruckmen Darren Jolly and Beau MacDonald.

The argument was that as Maric was obviously tiring and needed a spell, and as we were coming up against weak ruck divisions (Kangaroos, Collingwood and West Coast minus Cox and Gardiner) blooding Meesen at that stage may have been opportune.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Thanks Mad dog, but the question was meant to be rhetorical

It just seems that if someone presents both sides of an argument people are quick to praise them for their balanced view. By not expressing a definitive opinion one way or the other no one can disagree with them.

 

[Mad Dog]

Thanks, but the question was meant to be rhetorical

I assumed as much - but couldn't resist.....

It just seems that if someone presents both sides of an argument people are quick to praise them for their balanced view. By not expressing a definitive opinion one way or the other no one can disagree with them.

oh - I was very definite about there being 2 sides to the story...

 

[marvin]

Meesen started off really well in the seniors last year before he lost his confidence and was dropped to reserves where he injured his knee eventually.

Your ex coach even admitted that he destroyed Meesen's confidence by playing him the the forward pocket rather than in the ruck.

and

As for the Clarke playing reserves, that had more to do with the ****wit coaching South Adelaide rather than Clarke's ability to perfrom. Interesting how when he was called back into AFL his form was good. I wonder why?

So one guy plays reserves because his coach is a ****wit, and the other plays reserves because his coach stuffed him around.

Sounds similar.....

 

[Cap]

this is colin wisbey report of Pfeiffer (for this newbies Colin used to do this for all recruits - however many idiot posters used to complain because their new recruit didn't get a great report from him - and their club wouldn;t recruit a dud.... etc etc - see bay 13 for more of these types of posters)

anyhow used as a guide I was quite interested in young Pfeiffer - could anyone say if he has improved on the issues that Colin raised ?

Date Posted: 23:05:30 11/29/05 Tue
Author: Colin Wisbey
Author Host/IP: c211-28-121-197.eburwd3.vic.optusnet.com.au / 211.28.121.197
Subject: Profile: D Pfeiffer

Darren Pfeiffer (Norwood)

183/79 mid-age right foot (has other foot if necessary) HBF/utility.

*STYLE LIKE: Paul Kelly.

*MY RANKING (not meant to reflect appropriate draft pick to use): 19

*PROBABILITY OF AFL CAREER: Likely. Ready Year 1.

- Within an AFL team list, could prove capable of SUSTAINING a ranking of 10-15.

*HURT FACTORS (Offensive/Defensive/Negative): M / M / M

*TRADEMARK:

- Fearless, and probably successful, fly for a big mark, then tear off downfield but show tunnel-vision and maybe not get value from his kick.
- Just about anything else involving courage.

*SUMMARY ASSESSMENT, RECOMMENDATION:

- Courageous/fearless and ferocious 6ft take-them-on terrier dasher and high-flyer but kicking, decision-making and accountability a worry. At times, looks serious AFL potential and moves like a good aggressively intense, hard-running AFL type.

Not necessarily a hard-nut, as in "natural insider onballer" type like Paul Kelly was, but he does get his own ball and he plays a very similar style and his attributes and deficiencies are very similar to a HBF version of Kelly's - especially in the areas of courage, ferocious desire for the ball, hard running without being lightning, ability to play tall, ability to withstand physical pressure despite not having a tank build, fierce attack on the man, and NQR kicking efficiency. Pfeiffer will never reach the heights Kelly reached and Kelly was ahead in reliability of decision-making but I do see a lot of Kelly in Pfeiffer and Kelly was one of my most admired players.

- There is plenty to like, and some things to love, about Darren. In addition to the above, he links well and runs hard to do so, he gives a lot of run off half-back

However, his kicking and vision / decision-making on the run let him down too often, he is not nearly accountable enough for someone whose natural AFL role would seem to be HBF, and he is a run-the-lines dasher but not especially quick. I rate him but not with quite the same degree of enthusiasm many others do. If he wasn't inclined to have tunnel vision on the run (which he very often is) and if he hit more targets by foot and if he exercised more judicious accountability, or if I was really confident he could fully address that, I'd rank him as a first rounder and be really excited about him as a great package. But he is, he doesn't, he doesn't, I'm not, so I can't. Hence I wouldn't consider paying more than an early 2nd round pick (but I would quite happily take him with that) and there is a degree of good faith even in accepting that price. I expect him to go mid-late first round.

I have no doubt he will play plenty of AFL games and he will probably hit the ground running. At the moment though, his hurt factors are out of sync (and I've been a bit generous in how I've labelled them). He has to improve his 3 hurt factors (especially DHF and NHF) if he is to become a quality AFL long-termer.

- Originally from rural SA. Has shown he can mix it with the men (not that there should have been any doubt). Had a very good year of SANFL Reserves footy this year and some useful exposure to Seniors (not a lot of game time until an impressive 21 disposals game in Rnd 23).

*DISPOSAL:
(see above)

- Overall, good by hand (but doesn't do enough handballs) and very dicey by foot. Too many turnovers, let alone other inaccurate kicks.

- Dual-sided. Almost equally comfortable right or left but he has days where his non-preferred left gets him into serious trouble. At times his left foot delivers very well but it also has a frustrating turnover record. I would like him to use his left only when using his right is inconvenient. He too often chooses to use his left when he could just as easily, or almost as easily, use his right.

- Kicking when not on the run: Often quite good but not reliably so, and sometimes downright poor. Can get good depth but is not a thumping kick.

- Kicking on the run: Very mixed bag indeed. Sub-standard reliability. He regularly loses form (kicking technique), hunching over and hurriedly banging the ball onto the boot, even when not under any great pressure. He seems to have poor awareness of the pressure he is or isn't under. Too often kicks on the run as if he is about to get nailed. His frequent failure to steady and maintain technique means his kicks on the run often lack depth and power. Too many of his kicks on the run are mongrels/wobblers,

- Good by hand - quick hands, good hurt factor.

*DECISION-MAKING, SMARTS:
(see above)

- In general, vision / looking for options, and decision-making are mixed bag, sometimes exceptional, sometimes showing poor judgement. He is very often very good at traffic in terms of instinctive quick thinking, vision etc. However, in a tactical sense, he needs to play more footy-smart.

- He is somewhat of a ball magnet in the reverse sense. i.e. he is drawn to the ball like a moth to a flame. His fierce appetite for the ball is both a strength and a weakness. Strength in that he runs hard and far for it and won't accept "No" for answer once he has an opportunity to get it (ground, receive, or overhead). Weakness in that he is not always judicious in working out when to go and when to stay (assuming his thought processes actually do accommodate the prospect of a "stay" option). He is not drawn to the ball in the sense of a 12yo chasing it all over the park. He is smarter than that. It's just that his natural instinct is to almost always try to either run at the ball or run to a position in which he anticipates the ball will eventually come to or through. (see "Accountability" comments below). To put it another way, he puts more emphasis on making the play than on minimising the opportunities for the opposition to make the play. He is ultra competitive in his passion for the ball but needs a better grasp of the other side of competitiveness (i.e. adopting a miserly distaste for his opponent getting easy possessions elsewhere).

- Excellent reader of both play and ball when the play is unfolding in front of him. Excellent at roving the spill, especially good at front and square - a speciality of his. In that context, he knows where to run and when, and is very efficient in gathering and often in disposing when he does.

- When under pressure, even little-medium pressure, he needs to focus on slipping into space to buy time. Needs to improve his ability to do same.

- Capable of displaying good vision but, on the run, too often has tunnel vision instead of steadying and sorting out best option.

- Dubious awareness (see above).

- He needs to mix his game up more. At the moment he would offer an opposition AFL coach little challenge in planning a range of tactics to handle and exploit him. There is currently too much of an "Ignore opponent, run to ball or space, gather or receive or fly to mark ball, carry ball downfield, kick in direction of goals" predictability about his game.

Ratio of kicks to feeds is too high. Doesn't feed off nearly often enough (especially given his handballing ability). Too often has tunnel vision and just kicks straight and as far as he can instead of looking for best option. Needs to be more attuned to opportunities to feed off, especially to other runners in space and/or to switch direction.

- Inclined to too often fly for the mark when he has little or no chance of taking it, instead of waiting down.

*HANDS:

- Usually clean all levels. Not routinely special but does often collect the pill off the ground very cleanly at pace.

*OVERHEAD MARKING:

- Very strong overhead for his size. Plays tall. Attacks his marks very aggressively with reckless abandon, including launching himself into the face of the pack. Maintains balance, usually judges flight well and has good hands.

- As stated above, could be more judicious in selecting which aerial contests are worth flying for though, and on which occasions it is better to stay down and sweat of the spill or cover a dangerous free opponent.

- No DC reach figures were published but I suspect he might have a bit of a reach advantage (unconfirmed).

*ATHLETICISM:

- Quite good pace, a bit above average for his size, but he can often look quicker than he actually is because he often already has momentum when getting the ball so steals an initial break once he gets it. He is certainly not super quick but he does often seem to be able to find another gear on the run.

- Excellent leap.

- Will finish up with a very good build for AFL and it won't take long.

- Even allowing for the hard running he does, he does appear to tire at times, and his body shape doesn't appear to be all that rock-hard at this stage so I suspect his endurance is not quite there yet but that he has plenty of scope to lift it.

*INTENSITY, ETHIC:
(see above)

- Accountability is a concern. He is certainly not a downhill skier. He runs hard both ways and is super competitive and regularly desperate and ferocious in trying to nail both ball and man. It's just that he routinely backs his judgement. It's not "just" that he zones off his man at the last minute. He is too inclined to free-wheel and without being necessarily discerning. His opponents made him pay on various occasions this year and a clever AFL forward will make him pay dearly. He is very accountable and intensely physical once an opponent already has the ball or looks a chance to get it. However, in other cases, Pfeiffer's implicit "If I manage to get the ball, the opposition will have to worry about me because they won't have the ball" policy can get in the road of what is sometimes a more important need to make sure his opponent doesn't or is not left in a position where he could be damaging..

- Other than accountability, he usually displays excellent intensity and ethic.

- Fiercely competitive. Ferocious. "Never" gives up. Chases hard, tackles well. Attacks both man and ball with purpose. Always plays as if he really wants the ball. Attacks a marking spoil with the same enthusiasm as when competing for the mark.

- Virtually all the 1%ers covered.

- Ultra courageous.

- An almost relentless runner. Runs hard, covers ground, works hard when he gets to the ball/contest.

*CONSISTENCY:

- Rarely plays a poor game. What you see is what you get.

*AFL VERSATILITY:

- Running HBF seems ideal but he must lift his accountability to his own opponent. "Wing" also suits. In time, when he builds up endurance and if (!) he decides to become much more accountable, might even be a chance of a run-with role.

- I don't see him as a HFF as I think he is better when he can see the play unfold more in front of him and run direct with the ball. Hasn't played a lot as a forward but doesn't seem to read the play and run to the right spots and at with the right timing like a natural forward would. There are some elements of the same on display when he plays onball (as compared to a "wing" role. For that reason I am dubious of his prospects of becoming a smart inside onballer.

*CSI (COMPARATIVE SCOPE for IMPROVEMENT):

- No special factors.

*QUERY:

- Kicking accuracy, especially on the run.
- Tunnel vision on the run.
- Evasion, creating space.
- Accountability.

*SOME STATS:

- Stats summary '05 U18 Champs:
Averaged 17 disposals and 5.0 marks in his 3 games. (Best TD 21).
Kicks per 20 disp: 17.
Kicks long vs short: 21-15 (6 long per 10 kicks).
Ineffective kicks: 7/43 (1.6 per 10 kicks), incl 3 clangers (0.7 per 10 kicks).
Ineffective handballs: 1/7 (1.4 per 10 handballs), incl 1 clangers (1.4 per 10 handballs).
Ineffective disposals: 8/50 (3.2 per 20 disp), incl 4 clangers (1.6 per 20 disp).
HandBall Receives: 16/50 (6 per 20 disp).
Hardball gets: 6/50 (2 per 20 disp).
S.P. clearances: 3/50 (1 per 20 disp), incl 2 BU (1 per 20 disp), incl 0 CBC (0 per 20 disp).
Tackles: 6 (Avg 2.0 per game).
Marks: 15 (6 per 20 disp), incl 3 contested (2.0 per 10 marks).

*OTHER STUFF:

- Good Reserves form '05. Played a few Seniors games (21d R23).

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

LOL, nice work Mad Dog

Stiffy_18, there are countless examples of successful teams having a balance of experienced players, emerging players, veterans, players in their prime and inexperienced players.

All players bring different qualities to the team, whether it be reliability, confidence, leadership, energy, brilliance, courage, exuberance, the unknown, the x-factor... whatever. I am of the opinion that a balance in player type is a crucial ingredient to the success of a team.

The Crows have looked flat for quite a few weeks now, compared to the start of the season. This flatness and lack of spark was never so evident than before the Bulldogs game at the MCG. Did you see the Bulldogs pre-match gee up when Brad Johnson brought the youngster on debut into the group? I forget the blokes name but there is something exciting and fresh about a young player experiencing things for the first time. It certainly can rub off on the rest of the players. Whilst they might be inexperienced, unproven and a gamble there is an intangible benefit to the playing group. Impossible to measure but I'm sure it is there.

I would have thought the Bulldogs would have been flat having travelled to Darwin, losing to Port Adelaide and that all their injuries were finally catching up with them. Wrong. They were awesome.

McGrath, Healy and Warne were plucked from relative obscurity and achieved success at the highest level in a short space of time, despite a few hiccups - ie Warne averaged over 300 in Test Cricket at one stage!