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

[BACCS]

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.

I'm sorry, but why did you mention Jenkins? A guy we recruited to replace Tippett...

 

[AFC979810]

Fill me in please champ.

Because oue depth has been discussed at length on here and heralded by all, including by Sando.

Surely I don't need to fill you in on how rubbish the notion is that our players from 15-35 are even. There is daylight between our 15-20th best players and our 35th.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Surely I don't need to fill you in on how rubbish the notion is that our players from 15-35 are even. There is daylight between our 15-20th best players and our 35th.

But why? Why is their daylight between our 15th ranked player and out 35th ranked player?

Development? Age? Playing time? Responsibility?

You are correct in saying there is daylight between our 15th and 35th player because their us a massive gap between AFL and SANFL but that doesn't mean, the 25th to 35th ranked player doesn't have that ability or potential.

They just need that opportunity to develop into that players we hope they can. Therefore, is it unexpected to suggest with development and time, that 30th ranked player will become better than that 15th ranked player?

It's feasible.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Surely I don't need to fill you in on how rubbish the notion is that our players from 15-35 are even. There is daylight between our 15-20th best players and our 35th.

So, now you're calling Sanderson a liar?

He has described in great detail how difficult he found it picking our 22 and had up to 35 players he was considering.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I'm sorry, but why did you mention Jenkins? A guy we recruited to replace Tippett...

Jesus Christ.

We really need a sticky on the front page with big bold writing that explains how the notion "WE SHOULD ONLY TRADE AWAY OUR CRAPPY PLAYERS" is perhaps the stupidest, most misguided, oft-repeated pearl of wisdom that gets thrown around on here and why it is wrong.

 

[AFC979810]

So, now you're calling Sanderson a liar?

He has described in great detail how difficult he found it picking our 22 and had up to 35 players he was considering.

Well he admits it himself -

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...renton-sanderson/story-e6frf9jf-1226587184262

But in all seriousness I don't care if he said 'it was difficult it was picking our best 22 and up to 35 players were considered'. Thats PR talk to the media to keep the fans happy. Lets remember this is also a guy who said that Tambling is going to play a lot of footy for us this year.

We have shown zero signs of having good depth. Under Sando's regime we have not been tested until this week (missing Sando's go to players in Tipp/Doughty from last year and Vince/VB/Callinan). Its one thing to have players playing well in the SANFL - its a whole different story to see that form translate to AFL.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Well he admits it himself -

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...renton-sanderson/story-e6frf9jf-1226587184262

But in all seriousness I don't care if he said 'it was difficult it was picking our best 22 and up to 35 players were considered'. Thats PR talk to the media to keep the fans happy. Lets remember this is also a guy who said that Tambling is going to play a lot of footy for us this year.

We have shown zero signs of having good depth. Under Sando's regime we have not been tested until this week (missing Sando's go to players in Tipp/Doughty from last year and Vince/VB/Callinan). Its one thing to have players playing well in the SANFL - its a whole different story to see that form translate to AFL.

Well, how about you have a gander at the number of players we chose to use last season. That should give you some clue. I seriously can't believe that anyone is arguing against this.

It is beyond obvious.

And the fact that we've just brought in the 41st ranked player on our list this week might help too.

 

[Vader]

Well, how about you have a gander at the number of players we chose to use last season. That should give you some clue. I seriously can't believe that anyone is arguing against this.

Garbage. 20 players played 19+ games last year, indicating that those 20 were clearly regarded as being head and shoulders above the rest. Then there Shaw, Henderson and Jenkins all on 11+.

At the other end of the scale we also had 8 players who played 3 games or less. Some of these were youngsters who were given their first taste of footy, as the next stage in their development. Others (eg Tambling) were given games purely so that Sando could see what they are (or aren't) capable of at AFL level. There is not and never was any indication that these players were rated even remotely close to those 15-22 on our list.

The gap between 15 and 16 might be small, as is the difference between 22 and 23, 34 and 35. However, the gap between 22 and 35 is a gaping chasm. The gulf between 15 and 35 is obscenely wide.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Garbage. 20 players played 19+ games last year, indicating that those 20 were clearly regarded as being head and shoulders above the rest. Then there Shaw, Henderson and Jenkins all on 11+.

At the other end of the scale we also had 8 players who played 3 games or less. Some of these were youngsters who were given their first taste of footy, as the next stage in their development. Others (eg Tambling) were given games purely so that Sando could see what they are (or aren't) capable of at AFL level. There is not and never was any indication that these players were rated even remotely close to those 15-22 on our list.

The gap between 15 and 16 might be small, as is the difference between 22 and 23, 34 and 35. However, the gap between 22 and 35 is a gaping chasm. The gulf between 15 and 35 is obscenely wide.

And how many players did we use?

Unforced.

Even with this dream injury run.

 

[Vader]

And how many players did we use?

Unforced.

Even with this dream injury run.

38. With a first year coach, who wanted to see every player on his team list at least once, so he could make an informed decision about their capabilities.

So far we've used 24 players in 3 rounds. That will rise to 27 players tomorrow. I sincerely doubt that we'll get anywhere near last year's tally of 38 in 2012. It's very hard to see any of the following being given a game, unless our injury list gets very long indeed:
Joyce, Tambling, Thompson, Johnston, Graham, Atkins, Siggins & Ellis-Yolmen.

The youngsters might get 1 or 2 game tasters, but I get the feeling that Kerridge, Lyons, Laird, Lynch & Grigg have this year's development positions sewn up between them.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

38. With a first year coach, who wanted to see every player on his team list at least once, so he could make an informed decision about their capabilities.

So far we've used 24 players in 3 rounds. That will rise to 27 players tomorrow. I sincerely doubt that we'll get anywhere near last year's tally of 38 in 2012. It's very hard to see any of the following being given a game, unless our injury list gets very long indeed:
Joyce, Tambling, Thompson, Johnston, Graham, Atkins, Siggins & Ellis-Yolmen.

The youngsters might get 1 or 2 game tasters, but I get the feeling that Kerridge, Lyons, Laird, Lynch & Grigg have this year's development positions sewn up between them.

So, in four games we've already drilled down to position No 27 on our list.

And that's without us seeing Brodie Smith or Sam Shaw yet.

Oh, and with only one forced change (van Berlo) for the season.

I reckon we'll get to my magic "35" without batting an eyelid and completely stand by my comments that players 15-35 on our list are quite even - which is both a strength and a weakness.

It's actually worse than that. Most would have our A Graders listed as Thompson, Dangerfield, Jacobs, Sloane and Walker with Talia and Rutten thrown in as A Grade standard key defenders. And Brodie Smith as the next player most likely to push into that group.

So it's actually positions 9-35 that you could throw a blanket over. The minimal difference between Player 9 and Player 35 is one of the reasons we don't compete with the big boys when it counts.

We need the older players in that 9-35 group (22+ year olds) to push into the A Grade group, or to * off out of our 22.

 

[Paladin]

So, in four games we've already drilled down to position No 27 on our list.

And that's without us seeing Brodie Smith or Sam Shaw yet.

Oh, and with only one forced change (van Berlo) for the season.

I reckon we'll get to my magic "35" without batting an eyelid and completely stand by my comments that players 15-35 on our list are quite even - which is both a strength and a weakness.

It's actually worse than that. Most would have our A Graders listed as Thompson, Dangerfield, Jacobs, Sloane and Walker with Talia and Rutten thrown in as A Grade standard key defenders. And Brodie Smith as the next player most likely to push into that group.

So it's actually positions 9-35 that you could throw a blanket over. The minimal difference between Player 9 and Player 35 is one of the reasons we don't compete with the big boys when it counts.

We need the older players in that 9-35 group (22+ year olds) to push into the A Grade group, or to **** off out of our 22.

I would start with trading Brent Reilly. Otten, Henderson or Shaw can easily do what he does with greater upside and less goal gifting howlers.

 

[Vader]

So, in four games we've already drilled down to position No 27 on our list.

And that's without us seeing Brodie Smith or Sam Shaw yet.

All that's been proven is that there's not a whole lot separating players 24-30 on the list. Which is an awfully long way from supporting your ridiculous premise about 15-35 being even remotely close to even.

I reckon we'll get to my magic "35" without batting an eyelid and completely stand by my comments that players 15-35 on our list are quite even - which is both a strength and a weakness.

I doubt we'll get to 35, unless we have a shocking run with injuries. 32-33 is probably what we're looking at.

It's actually worse than that. Most would have our A Graders listed as Thompson, Dangerfield, Jacobs, Sloane and Walker with Talia and Rutten thrown in as A Grade standard key defenders. And Brodie Smith as the next player most likely to push into that group.

So it's actually positions 9-35 that you could throw a blanket over. The minimal difference between Player 9 and Player 35 is one of the reasons we don't compete with the big boys when it counts.

We need the older players in that 9-35 group (22+ year olds) to push into the A Grade group, or to **** off out of our 22.

Now you're just flat out trolling.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I would start with trading Brent Reilly. Otten, Henderson or Shaw can easily do what he does with greater upside and less goal gifting howlers.

Brent Reily keeps playing like he is, he may find his place on any AFL in danger.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

All that's been proven is that there's not a whole lot separating players 24-30 on the list. Which is an awfully long way from supporting your ridiculous premise about 15-35 being even remotely close to even.

Well, given that everyone down to Player 38 acquitted themselves pretty well last year - and supposedly our best 22 are WAAAAAAY ahead of these guys - then why haven't we been rolling in premierships these last few years?

Now you're just flat out trolling.

Ok, so please list all the players that weren't in my Top 8 that you would regard as A Grade

 

[cmndstab]

So, now you're calling Sanderson a liar?

He has described in great detail how difficult he found it picking our 22 and had up to 35 players he was considering.

Sometimes, to be a good manager of people you have to, yes, lie a bit.

I am very sure that Sanderson does not think the group from 25-35 is even a patch on the group from 15-25.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I would start with trading Brent Reilly. Otten, Henderson or Shaw can easily do what he does with greater upside and less goal gifting howlers.

It was quite clever of Reilly to set himself up as our Homesickness Doctor for Young Victorian Draftees. He's been pointed at a few times as having come over as a kid, been troubled initially, but settled in and learned to love the place. A great mentor for our new draftees, the club has used him in this role a number of times. It obviously worked wonders with Gunston. It's handy to have a couple of strings to your bow:
- mentor
- hot girlfriend

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Sometimes, to be a good manager of people you have to, yes, lie a bit.

I am very sure that Sanderson does not think the group from 25-35 is even a patch on the group from 15-25.

I think at the moment he is extremely worried that it is

And he carried this "PR subterfuge" into his actual 2012 team selections. How elaborate.

 

[AFC979810]

So it's actually positions 9-35 that you could throw a blanket over. The minimal difference between Player 9 and Player 35 is one of the reasons we don't compete with the big boys when it counts.

You have lost the plot completely.

Based on your previous posts - you list Thompson/Danger/Sloane/Walker/Jacobs/Thommo/Rutten/Talia/Smith as our top 9. I agree with this 100% that these are our top 9.

But to say that there is minimal difference between players like VB #10 /Wright #11 / Douglas #12 and our players who are around the #35 spot in Tambling/Graham/Hartigan is absolute stupidity, no matter the context.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

You have lost the plot completely.

Based on your previous posts - you list Thompson/Danger/Sloane/Walker/Jacobs/Thommo/Rutten/Talia/Smith as our top 9. I agree with this 100% that these are our top 9.

But to say that there is minimal difference between players like VB #10 /Wright #11 / Douglas #12 and our players who are around the #35 spot in Tambling/Graham/Hartigan is absolute stupidity, no matter the context.

Not no difference. Not enough difference.

You've got Thommo twice.

9 Douglas
10 Wright
11 Reilly
12 Mackay
13 van Berlo
14 Henderson

And the original 15-35 players. I'm not seeing an absolute gulf in quality here.

15 Porplyzia......25 Brown
16 Vince..........26 Lynch
17 Otten.........27 Kerridge
18 Jenkins........28 Martin
19 Crouch........29 Riley
20 Callinan.......30 Tambling
21 Petrenko......31 Lyons
22 Shaw..........32 L Thompson
23 Jaensch........33 Johnston
24 Johncock......34 McKernan/35 Graham

You compare that to Collingwood

Top 8: Pendlebury, Swan, Beams, Cloke, Sidebottom, Reid, Shaw, D Thomas

9 Ball
10 Jolly
11 Lynch
12 Blair
13 O'Brien
14 Toovey

15 Maxwell......25 Didak
16 Elliott........26 Young
17 Clarke.......27 McCaffer
18 Fasolo.......28 Dwyer
19 Hudson......29 Sinclair
20 Brown........30 Seedsman
21 Johnson......31 Yagmoor
22 Goldsack.....32 Keeffe
23 Russell........33 Paine
24 Krakouer......34 J Thomas/35 Frost

Firstly with players 9-14 you'd take all Collingwood's players first which says plenty by itself.

And in their 15-24 list there are some genuine game-breakers and proven finals-quality players. There is a huge difference between their 15-24 and their 25-35. Ours is not nearly as pronounced.

 

[AFC979810]

Not no difference. Not enough difference.

Go back through the thread. It was you saying throw a blanket over players 9-35 and there is minimal difference between them. That is an outlandish ridiculous statement and no matter how many Collingwood comparisons you wish to make - it will always be ridiculous.

You've got Thommo twice.

My bad.

9 Douglas
10 Wright
11 Reilly
12 Mackay
13 van Berlo
14 Henderson

And the original 15-35 players. I'm not seeing an absolute gulf in quality here.

15 Porplyzia......25 Brown
16 Vince..........26 Lynch
17 Otten.........27 Kerridge
18 Jenkins........28 Martin
19 Crouch........29 Riley
20 Callinan.......30 Tambling
21 Petrenko......31 Lyons
22 Shaw..........32 L Thompson
23 Jaensch........33 Johnston
24 Johncock......34 McKernan/35 Graham

You compare that to Collingwood

Top 8: Pendlebury, Swan, Beams, Cloke, Sidebottom, Reid, Shaw, D Thomas

9 Ball
10 Jolly
11 Lynch
12 Blair
13 O'Brien
14 Toovey

15 Maxwell......25 Didak
16 Elliott........26 Young
17 Clarke.......27 McCaffer
18 Fasolo.......28 Dwyer
19 Hudson......29 Sinclair
20 Brown........30 Seedsman
21 Johnson......31 Yagmoor
22 Goldsack.....32 Keeffe
23 Russell........33 Paine
24 Krakouer......34 J Thomas/35 Frost

Well assuming that you are using these comparisons based on playing to the players ability - especially since you have Luke Ball - who has played 3 games since 2011 at #9.

So no matter how you want to spin it - there is a massive difference in quality between Porps/Vince best football than McKernan/Graham. You can make as many lists / comparisons as you want - in no way on any earth is Porps = McKernan.

Sidenote - there is no way Hudson is #19 in Collingwood's pecking order. Is only in because Jolly is injured. You may as well rank Angus Graham #19 on our list because if Jacobs goes down he will be our #1 ruck.

Firstly with players 9-14 you'd take all Collingwood's players first which says plenty by itself.

And in their 15-24 list there are some genuine game-breakers and proven finals-quality players. There is a huge difference between their 15-24 and their 25-35. Ours is not nearly as pronounced.

To be honest - I don't see a huge rift between our 9-24 and Collingwoods 9-24 (and this is where we have disagreed on numerous threads). I think the real reason for Collingwoods dominance is the success of their top 8 compared to ours. Guys like Swan/Pendles/Cloke/Shaw/Thomas have been dominating the competition for numerous years. They have a Brownlow / Norm Smith and a whole heap of All Australian awards between them. They are so much better than our top 8 it isn't even funny. Our only consistent performer over the past few years has been Thommo. Its no surprise that Collingwood are 3-1 and have Pendles/Cloke/Swan/Shaw firing. We are 1-2 and have had Danger/Jacobs/Walker/Sloane all fail to influence the majority of the games.

The only year we have had our top 8 compete with Collingwoods was last year, where we had almost identical seasons.

We can debate the Petrenko's / Reilly's / Douglas's (said in Gary Ayres Voice) - but the fact of the matter is every team will only be as successful as their best players. Ours have struggled this year and as a result we are 1-2.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Go back through the thread. It was you saying throw a blanket over players 9-35 and there is minimal difference between them. That is an outlandish ridiculous statement and no matter how many Collingwood comparisons you wish to make - it will always be ridiculous.

You know you're not actually saying anything here.

And did you not watch today?

Van Berlo, Vince, Johncock out. Porplyzia subbed. Replacements Kerridge, Brown, Laird, Lynch. How much worse were we?

Surely we'd be significantly worse given that "no way on earth" are the replacements anywhere near the quality of the players they were coming in for.

Well assuming that you are using these comparisons based on playing to the players ability - especially since you have Luke Ball - who has played 3 games since 2011 at #9.

So no matter how you want to spin it - there is a massive difference in quality between Porps/Vince best football than McKernan/Graham. You can make as many lists / comparisons as you want - in no way on any earth is Porps = McKernan.

Sidenote - there is no way Hudson is #19 in Collingwood's pecking order. Is only in because Jolly is injured. You may as well rank Angus Graham #19 on our list because if Jacobs goes down he will be our #1 ruck.

See, I've always wondered about people's self awareness. When you argue semantics that have no bearing on the point, do you realise you're doing it? Is it just that you've given up and conceded and are trying to win back 'points' by claiming that "Yagmoor should be above Seedsman rolleyes rolleyes." Known as the Vader Classic. Or have you just forgotten what your point is?

Who cares whether Hudson is 19 or 22 or 25? The broad categories are what is being debated here and the variations in lists. Namely that Collingwood has a larger variation between it's top, middle and bottom players whereas ours spreads evenly after the first handful. As today indicates.

To be honest - I don't see a huge rift between our 9-24 and Collingwoods 9-24 (and this is where we have disagreed on numerous threads). I think the real reason for Collingwoods dominance is the success of their top 8 compared to ours. Guys like Swan/Pendles/Cloke/Shaw/Thomas have been dominating the competition for numerous years. They have a Brownlow / Norm Smith and a whole heap of All Australian awards between them. They are so much better than our top 8 it isn't even funny. Our only consistent performer over the past few years has been Thommo. Its no surprise that Collingwood are 3-1 and have Pendles/Cloke/Swan/Shaw firing. We are 1-2 and have had Danger/Jacobs/Walker/Sloane all fail to influence the majority of the games.

See, now you've tried to change the goal posts. Yes, Collingwood's top 8 is better than ours.

So are you saying we should have been trading away players like Douglas, Wright, Mackay, Jenkins, van Berlo, Vince... plus picks in order to get ourselves 1-2 genuine quality players? Agreed 100%. What's the point of having a very even list with lots of depth right down to No 41 (Laird) when we know it's the quality closer to the top end that counts?

So you're actually reinforcing my point here, not arguing against it.

The only year we have had our top 8 compete with Collingwoods was last year, where we had almost identical seasons.

We can debate the Petrenko's / Reilly's / Douglas's (said in Gary Ayres Voice) - but the fact of the matter is every team will only be as successful as their best players. Ours have struggled this year and as a result we are 1-2.

Cloke and Thomas in poor form all last year. Pendlebury fractured leg that affected him for weeks. No 9 Luke Ball out for season. Yet they were able to pick up the slack with players from that secondary group.

Nothing you've said has changed the fact that we've got too many mid-range players. Hanging on to too many mid-range, minimal upside footballers on our list for too many years.

We are basically back-filling the SANFL clubs. We are training up their players, getting them fitter, recruiting from interstate, all so we can have a dozen or more glittering performances in the SANFL each week. Symes Magarey, I wonder if we can get Vince one this year? Or Lyons? Or Riley?

Thinking further, and this spreads across amer's thread about us choking in finals, we are a club governed by fear. We are scared to trade out mid-range players just in case we need them. We don't back ourselves to identify the potential quality players on our list and then back them in to perform. Instead we need a whole host of options available because we don't know who the good ones are. We'll have to wait and see who trains well this week or who gets 25 SANFL touches. Safety in numbers.

 

[AFC979810]

You know you're not actually saying anything here.

And did you not watch today?

Van Berlo, Vince, Johncock out. Porplyzia subbed. Replacements Kerridge, Brown, Laird, Lynch. How much worse were we?

Surely we'd be significantly worse given that "no way on earth" are the replacements anywhere near the quality of the players they were coming in for.

See, I've always wondered about people's self awareness. When you argue semantics that have no bearing on the point, do you realise you're doing it? Is it just that you've given up and conceded and are trying to win back 'points' by claiming that "Yagmoor should be above Seedsman rolleyes rolleyes." Known as the Vader Classic. Or have you just forgotten what your point is?

Who cares whether Hudson is 19 or 22 or 25? The broad categories are what is being debated here and the variations in lists. Namely that Collingwood has a larger variation between it's top, middle and bottom players whereas ours spreads evenly after the first handful. As today indicates.

See, now you've tried to change the goal posts. Yes, Collingwood's top 8 is better than ours.

So are you saying we should have been trading away players like Douglas, Wright, Mackay, Jenkins, van Berlo, Vince... plus picks in order to get ourselves 1-2 genuine quality players? Agreed 100%. What's the point of having a very even list with lots of depth right down to No 41 (Laird) when we know it's the quality closer to the top end that counts?

So you're actually reinforcing my point here, not arguing against it.

We are going round in circles.

Here is a quick recap since you have gotten so obsessed with yet another Collingwood comparison that you have lost track.

You said that there is minimal difference between our 15th and 35th player on our list. I called Bullshit.
You then provided your rankings of our list. You had Porps at 15 and McKernan/Graham at 35. Based on your rankings I maintain that your original claim is crap and there is a hell of alot of difference between Porps as a player and Mckernan/Graham.

Thats it.

You can have a crack at me about arguing semantics, however you need to remember that it was you who brought up the Collingwood comparison - when in fact it had nothing to do with the original discussion (difference in quality between our 15th player and our 35th player).

We have argued at length on other threads about the difference between Collingwood and Adelaide's lists and list management in other threads. We aren't going to agree.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

We are going round in circles.

Here is a quick recap since you have gotten so obsessed with yet another Collingwood comparison that you have lost track.

You said that there is minimal difference between our 15th and 35th player on our list. I called Bullshit.
You then provided your rankings of our list. You had Porps at 15 and McKernan/Graham at 35. Based on your rankings I maintain that your original claim is crap and there is a hell of alot of difference between Porps as a player and Mckernan/Graham.

Well, there isn't unfortunately.

The Porps of 2009, of course. The Porps who has been sub 2 out of the last 3 weeks and is on the verge of being dropped to the SANFL, not so much. And Player 16 on my list is already back in the SANFL.

And Laird just waltzed past a whole bunch of them on the weekend from the rookie list.

You can have a crack at me about arguing semantics, however you need to remember that it was you who brought up the Collingwood comparison - when in fact it had nothing to do with the original discussion (difference in quality between our 15th player and our 35th player).

What are you talking about?

Do you understand that Adelaide is in a competition with other clubs?

The reason that I'm worried about our evenness from 15-35 is because it is different to the clubs who are the genuine contenders.