2nds The pressures and demands of being an AFL footballer in South Australia.

[alex_is_on_fire]

Rather than take a changes the direction of an match day in's and out's thread and take it off topic, I've borrowed this quote from Pete and it's come from this thread.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/changes-vs-bulldogs.999179/page-11#post-27811550

It's the stop- start development people have a problem with. Both Lyons and Lynch played games last year. But bringing them back now, it's like they're making their debut all over again.

If you're going to play a kid, you need to make the call about his readiness and then leave him in the side for a period of time. This is what needs to happen with Crouch now, but it should have already happened with a couple of the others.

I agree with what Pete is saying and we need to change the culture of how we develop players before we have another generation of failed draftees.

However, this has been going on ever since Gary Ayres walked into the front doors at West Lakes back in October 1999, this has been occurring. Sadly, it's almost become ingrained into the culture of the club. Neil Craig didn't fix or change this and Brenton Sanderson is doing his best to follow suit.

I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the bridge between being an SANFL player and the AFL and the coaches developing that faith to play the younger, less experienced players or the fear to bottom out.

Although, the discussion about younger players is very integrating and got me thinking - why do we always seem to have a mature aged team and is this best for the future of the club.

I was watching the NBA this morning and they were talking about how Kobe Bryant injured his Achilles Tendon and how Dwight Howard would handle the pressure and distractions of being the go to guy in LA.

OK, LA and Adelaide are not the same and the pressures, demands and distractions are similar on wanting our team to lose and the opposition set of fans wanting us to lose and lets the players know. Both ways - positive and negative.

In South Australia, it's common knowledge we don't have a pumping nightlife, not really the issue but we have been able to hold onto a fantastic football culture. Add Port Adelaide to this football supporter equation and their set of fan, and this brings a football different set of pressures and expectations from the day to day lives of AFL footballers that some of our players have never experienced before.

Now, bring this back to the Crows and we have this demonstrated this ability to develop a side that can only take us so far. Weather it's just bad lucky that we lose preliminary finals, 5 or 6 losing preliminary finals in 12 years and our window closes very quickly or do our players get burnt out by the off field demands and subconsciously can not handle that pressure being applied positively and negatively.

I feel we should be looking at ways that we can turn the 15 to 30 listed player over much quicker as to start eliminating any pressure, comfort or focus on winning. Therefore, we should be giving more younger players a change and for longer periods of time and then delist or trade them.

We need to stop giving player 3 or 4 years to find their feet in the SANFL before delisting them. They have 15 months and then we need to give them 20 AFL game or they are gone.

 

[Vigawla]

Sorry, don't know how to quote. 6th paragraph after Slippery Pete's quote, you say we want our team to lose? Haha. But I might be wrong, you might've meant to say it in a different context.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Sorry, don't know how to quote. 6th paragraph after Slippery Pete's quote, you say we want our team to lose? Haha. But I might be wrong, you might've meant to say it in a different context.

No, I'm sick of getting close enough but knowing deep down were not really good enough.

Turn players over at a quicker rate.

 

[Slippery Pete]

We even botched it with Dangerfield (admittedly to no great consequence). Brought him into the team in late 2008, then a fortnight later suddenly decided he wasn't ready for AFL action and took him back out.

That scenario has repeated itself with many of our kids since.

Now there's two issues at play here. One is being able to judge the readiness of the kid to play AFL football. You're PAID to get the call right from the beginning, not after you see him play two games. Anybody can do it then.

Secondly, if you hold a kid to a minimum weekly performance KPI, you are going to do it at the expense of his long term development.

That last point is one the AFC doesn't want to hear, but it's a reality.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

There are enough positions in a team to usher in a couple of young players who aren't ready to make consistent, meaningful contributions but will benefit greatly from the experience and improve quickly.

This needs to happen constantly, whether you are up the top of the ladder or in the middle scrapping for a final 8 spot. To do it, clubs need to be prepared to play some solid mid-range players in the SANFL and/or to trade them out at the end of their contract.

We didn't do this ever during Neil Craig's reign and haven't thus far under Sanderson - although admittedly Symes, Knight and Tambling played far fewer games in 2012 than they did in 2011.

We get stuck in a vicious circle.

First our list of top-liners is too thin. Too much depends on Thompson, Danger, Sloane, Jacobs and Walker. They have to all be producing borderline AA form each week just for us to beat mid-range teams.

If we are thin on top liners, that means we have to rely on contributions from our other players. For that reason, we can't afford to play 2-3 kids because we need to scrape together half-decent performances from Doughty, Shirley, Stevens, Petrenko, Vince etc right down to position 22 to make up for our lack of top line talent. So no room for the kids.

The problem is that you help develop top line talent by investing games into your most talented youngsters and allowing them to play and learn alongside your A Graders.

The comment was made in another thread that we can't bring in Lyons, Kerridge and Johnston all this week - because we'd be too young/inexperienced given that we've also got Crouch and Brown. And yeah, we probably would. Which is why a couple of those guys needed to bank their 15 games last year.

This is where the vicious circle comes in:
- We don't have many A Graders so we need LOTS of B Graders to flesh out our 22.
- We can't foster new A Graders because there are no spots in the 22.
- So we'll never have enough A Graders.

The tipping point eventually needs to arrive. At some stage one of our coaches needs to say "You know what? I don't think we're quite good enough to win a premiership with our Best 22." And then take the necessary steps to increase the number of A Graders at the club, even if it means taking a few steps backwards. But at the moment (and in 2005-09) we're getting close enough to keep our coaches excited about the possibility of pinching a flag with what we've got. And as Triggy keeps reminding them, "Make the 8 and anything can happen."

 

[Footypie32]

I've been stewing over this thought in my mind for awhile. It relates to our perceived mental weakness. It goes like this...

Since Blight left, I've felt we've always been a conservative club. Conservative in our game-plan, in our match selection, in our drafting, everywhere. We hate taking risks and discourage our players from doing the same.

When we eventually bite the bullet and decide to finally blood a new recruit, it seems the message to them is; Don't make a mistake, rather than; have a go. We reluctantly give them a try, but if they don't adhere to the game perfectly or they make a few "rookie" mistakes, they are quickly dropped the next week.

Last year, we made a major breakthrough. Our players started having a crack. We played on as much as we could. The fear of making a mistake was thrown out the window. We gave imperfect players like Walker a go because we saw the possible benefit in doing so. We started winning. We made mistakes, but we won.

This year, we've reverted back to "safe" mode. Our attack looks stagnant. Nobody wants to stand up and be accountable, because they may make an error and nobody wants that.

We, as a club, need to start looking at the potential gain of taking a gamble. We may make mistakes in the meantime, but that is ok. We have to attack the competition head-on, on and off the field. We stand to lose far more by being cautious.

"More is lost through indecision than wrong decision"- Cicero.

 

[Vader]

We even botched it with Dangerfield (admittedly to no great consequence). Brought him into the team in late 2008, then a fortnight later suddenly decided he wasn't ready for AFL action and took him back out.

Short memory?

Dangerfield's selection was a massive surprise, given that he was still playing with the Geelong Falcons at the time (having opted to stay at home in Moggs Creek to finish Year 12). He was given 2 games as a "taster", so he was better prepared to play senior football the following year. End result: he came straight into the senior team the following year and hasn't been dropped since.

 

[Vader]

I don't have a problem with kids only being given 1 or 2 games in their first and (maybe) second seasons. For the most part, they're nowhere near ready to play regularly in the AFL and this is about giving them experience so that they know what level they have to attain. Players like Crouch are very much an exception to the rule.

If that pattern continues into their 3rd and 4th seasons then we have genuine cause for concern.

 

[OrdinaryJoel]

You'd think that Sando, coming from a Geelong background that is noted in blooding youngsters, would try to imitate that here as well...

 

[Slippery Pete]

Short memory?

Dangerfield's selection was a massive surprise, given that he was still playing with the Geelong Falcons at the time (having opted to stay at home in Moggs Creek to finish Year 12). He was given 2 games as a "taster", so he was better prepared to play senior football.

He was dropped on performance, because he didn't get a kick in his second game and was a bit like a deer in the headlights.

If he'd came in and had 30 touches two weeks in a row he would have been selected again.

That's the problem right there. Wrong judgement calls on readiness, and then a minimum performance standard set, based on a wrong judgement call in the first place.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

You'd think that Sando, coming from a Geelong background that is noted in blooding youngsters, would try to imitate that here as well...

He's just started and as I said, Symes, Tambling and Knights played far fewer games in 2012 than they did in 2011. So a small step in the right direction.

jenny61_99 asked a key question in another thread, namely who is on our selection panel?

I wonder if the same batch of Craig Era Conservatives are still gumming up the works? Who is Graeme Dunstan? Seem to remember his name on there.

 

[Vader]

He was dropped on performance, because he didn't get a kick in his second game and was a bit like a deer in the headlights.

If he'd came in and had 30 touches two weeks in a row he would have been selected again.

That's the problem right there. Wrong judgement calls on readiness, and then a minimum performance standard set, based on a wrong judgement call in the first place.

He was never going to get more than 2 games. That was always the plan. From memory, they coincided with school holidays, giving him time to prepare with the club - whereas the rest of the time he was back home in Moggs Creek.

 

[BACCS]

He was never going to get more than 2 games. That was always the plan. From memory, they coincided with school holidays, giving him time to prepare with the club - whereas the rest of the time he was back home in Moggs Creek.

Yeah, I have no idea what SP is on about, Danger only played those games because they were in Victoria during his school holiday period. He must have an extremely short memory... nobody expected him to play at all that year, but we all knew that from when we drafted him. THAT is the reason he has been so loyal to the club.

 

[BACCS]

He's just started and as I said, Symes, Tambling and Knights played far fewer games in 2012 than they did in 2011. So a small step in the right direction.

jenny61_99 asked a key question in another thread, namely who is on our selection panel?

I wonder if the same batch of Craig Era Conservatives are still gumming up the works? Who is Graeme Dunstan? Seem to remember his name on there.

Aren't the selection panel just the coaches?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Aren't the selection panel just the coaches?

Quite possibly.

Harper? Noble?

 

[Slippery Pete]

He was never going to get more than 2 games. That was always the plan. From memory, they coincided with school holidays, giving him time to prepare with the club - whereas the rest of the time he was back home in Moggs Creek.

Is that why it was only two games? I stand corrected.

I wonder what would have happened if he was B.O.G those two weeks. Would have been hard to drop him.

There was not a lot to gain from playing him those two weeks.

 

[FR0GGY]

Is that why it was only two games? I stand corrected.

I wonder what would have happened if he was B.O.G those two weeks. Would have been hard to drop him.

There was not a lot to gain from playing him those two weeks.

Didnt you ever wag school?

 

[Smoooothy]

Short memory?

Dangerfield's selection was a massive surprise, given that he was still playing with the Geelong Falcons at the time (having opted to stay at home in Moggs Creek to finish Year 12). He was given 2 games as a "taster", so he was better prepared to play senior football the following year. End result: he came straight into the senior team the following year and hasn't been dropped since.

Both games were at the dome from memory

 

[Vader]

Is that why it was only two games? I stand corrected.

I wonder what would have happened if he was B.O.G those two weeks. Would have been hard to drop him.

There was not a lot to gain from playing him those two weeks.

All good. I think your hypothesis has a certain amount of validity and bears testing. It's just that Dangerfield is not a good example.

Brodie Martin, on the other hand, is a classic example...

 

[Stripple]

Agree. Martin has never had a good enough run to rule him in or out of our team. I think he has something as his two games against the saints showed but maybe his knees won't allow him to be a successful AFL player.

 

[skoobydoo]

I've been stewing over this thought in my mind for awhile. It relates to our perceived mental weakness. It goes like this...

Since Blight left, I've felt we've always been a conservative club. Conservative in our game-plan, in our match selection, in our drafting, everywhere. We hate taking risks and discourage our players from doing the same.

When we eventually bite the bullet and decide to finally blood a new recruit, it seems the message to them is; Don't make a mistake, rather than; have a go. We reluctantly give them a try, but if they don't adhere to the game perfectly or they make a few "rookie" mistakes, they are quickly dropped the next week.

Last year, we made a major breakthrough. Our players started having a crack. We played on as much as we could. The fear of making a mistake was thrown out the window. We gave imperfect players like Walker a go because we saw the possible benefit in doing so. We started winning. We made mistakes, but we won.

This year, we've reverted back to "safe" mode. Our attack looks stagnant. Nobody wants to stand up and be accountable, because they may make an error and nobody wants that.

We, as a club, need to start looking at the potential gain of taking a gamble. We may make mistakes in the meantime, but that is ok. We have to attack the competition head-on, on and off the field. We stand to lose far more by being cautious.

"More is lost through indecision than wrong decision"- Cicero.

Yes, Yes and Yes. I concur! We play from the game plan of 'lets defend well enough so that we don't lose this game' rather than 'lets take the game on and win it'.

 

[Hell Boy6669]

Agree. Martin has never had a good enough run to rule him in or out of our team. I think he has something as his two games against the saints showed but maybe his knees won't allow him to be a successful AFL player.

He has never had a good run because he stinks, crows supporters just get a hard on when anyone with pace comes onto our list.

 

[Stripple]

He has never had a good run because he stinks, crows supporters just get a hard on when anyone with pace comes onto our list.

True that (the pace part) still think he showed something but there's no way to confirm with they way we select.

 

[Slippery Pete]

But at the moment (and in 2005-09) we're getting close enough to keep our coaches excited about the possibility of pinching a flag with what we've got. And as Triggy keeps reminding them, "Make the 8 and anything can happen."

This is unfortunately true.

There's one key difference between now and 05-09 though - our A graders (except Thompson) are all young.

How does this change our strategy?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

This is unfortunately true.

There's one key difference between now and 05-09 though - our A graders (except Thompson) are all young.

How does this change our strategy?

It's an interesting point.

The last time we actively tried to win a premiership was 2002 when we recruited Carey and Burns and off-loaded picks. That didn't work and we've been a little gun-shy at the trade table since then.

Even in hindsight though it was absolutely the right thing to do. We had a gilt-edged midfield, excellent defence and a dismal forward line. We had a bunch of players in their absolute prime. Carey could have been the missing piece, and Burns the icing. Then the point post got in the way and everything went wrong.

The landscape has changed significantly for us this time around. First of all there is free agency. Second there is the little matter of us not having any decent picks to deal with this season. And third is the 3 years x $800k Tippett loose change we have to spend.

Father time has just about slammed the door shut on Johncock's career. Rutten and Thompson are the next two. A bold strategy would be to load up on some older players through free agency and also have a crack at a couple of players in their prime through trades. Have a crack at a flag before Rutten/Thommo fade away.

We would need to be prepared to off-load some of our twenty something mid-rangers in order to gain some trade currency. The ones with some value are Jenkins, Wright, Mackay, Otten, Douglas, Henderson. Would we be prepared to shop these guys around? I have my doubts.

Are we actually going to follow through on our stated intention to restructure the Tippett 2013 $800k and shift other player's 2014 payments into 2013? I have my doubts on this too.

I can see us doing none of these two things but ending up with someone like Joel Patfull through free agency and then describing it as a significant victory for Trigg.