The team that NC Built

[afc1991]

A bit of debate on other boards re development in Craig's time inspired me to see what a team of NC draftees looks like.


F: Jaensch Tippett Porps
HF: Henderson Walker Knights
C: Sloane Dangerfield McKay
HB: Otten Davis Van Berlo
B: Armstrong Sellar Petrenko
R: Maric Vince Douglas
......................................
Cook, Martin, Gunston, Young


Not bad, a few question marks, works in progress, but some very good players unearthed over a short period of time. Something that did not happen in the last two coaches time, particularly Ayres. Not sure we've ever had such an exciting crop of young players- whether that translates into a flag or not remains to be seen.

I have to admit at times I feel Craig is over cautious- there could be a handful more games into some of these blokes. If any one can be bothered comparing our drafting and development in the last 6 years to other clubs (id be interested to see 'the team that mick built'), I think we will find that the crows compare favorably..... allowing for factors like draft pick # and the fact we have gone tall recently.

 

[cammo6556]

It's not bad a team actually. The fb line is really quite weak but otherwise...

 

[Dirty Bird]

when I saw the title I was hoping this was what it was about
otherwise I was going to make my very own thread on this (inspired by this name though)

F: Jaensch-Tippett-Dangerfield
HF: Porplyzia-Walker-Knights
C: Douglas-Vince-Mackay
HB: Young-Davis-Armstrong
B: Otten-Talia-Petrenko
R: Maric-Thompson-Sloane
Int: Moran-Symes-van Berlo-Martin
Emg: Griffin-Cook-Henderson
SANFL: McKernan-Schimdt-Shaw-Craig-Sellar-Gunston
SANFL reserves: Jacky

 

[Stiffy_18]

Actually if we are to be fair, Rutten flourished under Craig. He was on the verge of getting delisted in 2004 until Craig took over and gave him the keys to FB.

Rutten himself has praised Craig for his development many times. He also took on and developed Bock, even though it both were recuruited as rookie listed players under Ayres.

 

[whitey_1975]

Actually if we are to be fair, Rutten flourished under Craig. He was on the verge of getting delisted in 2004 until Craig took over and gave him the keys to FB.

Rutten himself has praised Craig for his development many times. He also took on and developed Bock, even though it both were recuruited as rookie listed players under Ayres.

Too true on Rutten!
However from my understanding, Ayres wasnt responsible for drafting either Bock or Rutten, Jimmy Fanta was. In other words Ayres didnt care for either player.

 

[srv23]

Too true on Rutten!
However from my understanding, Ayres wasnt responsible for drafting either Bock or Rutten, Jimmy Fanta was. In other words Ayres didnt care for either player.

So anyone drafted under Ayres who was crap was Ayres fault for overruling Fantasia, but anyone drafted under Ayres who was good only got drafted because Fantasia insisted and Ayres thought they were crap?

I'm not saying what you've written isn't true because I don't know, but we can't have it both ways - Slam Ayres for poor recruting yet herald Fantasia, not Ayres when a player recruited during his time actually turns out to be good.

 

[jo172]

I'm not saying what you've written isn't true because I don't know, but we can't have it both ways - Slam Ayres for poor recruting yet herald Fantasia, not Ayres when a player recruited during his time actually turns out to be good.

Well we can.

It's just very unlikely

 

[afc1991]

It's not bad a team actually. The fb line is really quite weak but otherwise...

True... but it could afford to be, he had Bock Truck and stiffy on the list.

Agree re rutten- Craig has to get alot of credit there- installed him to FB and left him there. Apparently Ayres couldnt see that Bassett was punching above his weight week in week out.

Anyways I just thought it an interesting excercise.

btw 2 x club champions, 1 all australian, with porps unlucky.... and a fair few players we all have high hopes for (rightly so) who should add to these tallys.

 

[Vader]

So anyone drafted under Ayres who was crap was Ayres fault for overruling Fantasia, but anyone drafted under Ayres who was good only got drafted because Fantasia insisted and Ayres thought they were crap?

I'm not saying what you've written isn't true because I don't know, but we can't have it both ways - Slam Ayres for poor recruting yet herald Fantasia, not Ayres when a player recruited during his time actually turns out to be good.

Ayres was more prone to sticking his oar in where it wasn't wanted (or needed) with the first round draft selections. He was more prone to letting the recruitment staff do their jobs with the later rounds.

Thus, Ayres can be blamed for the failures of our 1st round selections, but Fantasia gets the credit for the later round success stories.

Yes, it's having a bit each way, but that's the way it is/was.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

F: Jaensch Tippett Porps
HF: Henderson Walker Knights
C: Sloane Dangerfield McKay
HB: Otten Davis Van Berlo
B: Armstrong Sellar Petrenko
R: Maric Vince Douglas
......................................
Cook, Martin, Gunston, Young

Q: Out of that group, what do Tippett, Dangerfield, Mackay, Otten, van Berlo, Maric and Douglas have in common?

A: They were the only ones who didn't play SANFL footy this season.

That's only 7 players after 7 seasons of development. For mine we haven't produced enough players who are first choice, perform every week, guaranteed selections during NC's time. We have relied too heavily on the players who were already there.

Edit: Oh yeah, and is VB the only one from that team in the leadership group? One player in seven years. Not enough.

 

[spexau]

Q: Out of that group, what do Tippett, Dangerfield, Mackay, Otten, van Berlo, Maric and Douglas have in common?

A: They were the only ones who didn't play SANFL footy this season.

That's only 7 players after 7 seasons of development. For mine we haven't produced enough players who are first choice, perform every week, guaranteed selections during NC's time. We have relied too heavily on the players who were already there.

Edit: Oh yeah, and is VB the only one from that team in the leadership group? One player in seven years. Not enough.

Not going to have much choice next year are we, hehe.

 

[afc1991]

Q: Out of that group, what do Tippett, Dangerfield, Mackay, Otten, van Berlo, Maric and Douglas have in common?

A: They were the only ones who didn't play SANFL footy this season.

That's only 7 players after 7 seasons of development. For mine we haven't produced enough players who are first choice, perform every week, guaranteed selections during NC's time. We have relied too heavily on the players who were already there.

Edit: Oh yeah, and is VB the only one from that team in the leadership group? One player in seven years. Not enough.

I do agree to some extent, like I said, there's been times he could have focused on youth a bit more. We are caught short a little now as a result. We chased wins and finals though- can't knock that- its what we all want.

To get nit picky, isnt it 6 seasons? Interested to know what the magic number is. 7s not enough, a third of a side. How many is?

This is where comparisons to other sides are warranted. Off the top of my head the pies have a few drafted in recent years that still play 2's from time to time... I guess the 'we dont drop players once theyve made it, whereas collingwood do' argument will come into play. Maybe fair enough too, Ive saved you a post.

 

[afc1991]

Not going to have much choice next year are we, hehe.

Nope. Its forced now. I get the feeling that will help though and in a couple of years time when some of these blokes are hitting their straps and are in the 50-100 game bracket we will forget that player x played a few extra games in the sanfl.

Tyson Edwards was Blighty's whipping boy. He dropped him more than once... no one harps on about that, or how he was ruined as a result.

 

[amer]

Q: Out of that group, what do Tippett, Dangerfield, Mackay, Otten, van Berlo, Maric and Douglas have in common?

A: They were the only ones who didn't play SANFL footy this season.

That's only 7 players after 7 seasons of development. For mine we haven't produced enough players who are first choice, perform every week, guaranteed selections during NC's time. We have relied too heavily on the players who were already there.

Edit: Oh yeah, and is VB the only one from that team in the leadership group? One player in seven years. Not enough.

That'd be because the players who were already there included Goodwin, McLeod, Edwards, Ricciuto, Rutten, Bock, Hart, Hentschel, Johncock, Bassett and more, and they were all performing at a walk-up start level for a fair old while.

"The team that Craig built" ignores that the likes of Johncock, Rutten, Bock (up till 2010 inclusive) are members of Adelaide's best 22, have all developed and improved under NC, and will bar Bock be there for a while yet. You can't chuck a blanket over them and count them as strikes against Craig, which is what the presented form of analysis is doing.

2011 will be the best indicator we'll have gotten under Craig of where things sit with his own draftees.

 

[Pietmans]

That'd be because the players who were already there included Goodwin, McLeod, Edwards, Ricciuto, Rutten, Bock, Hart, Hentschel, Johncock, Bassett and more, and they were all performing at a walk-up start level for a fair old while.

"The team that Craig built" ignores that the likes of Johncock, Rutten, Bock (up till 2010 inclusive) are members of Adelaide's best 22, have all developed and improved under NC, and will bar Bock be there for a while yet. You can't chuck a blanket over them and count them as strikes against Craig, which is what the presented form of analysis is doing.

2011 will be the best indicator we'll have gotten under Craig of where things sit with his own draftees.

Besides the obvious Rutten and Bock there have been a number of other players who improved immeasurably into consistent AFL players under Craig. For various reasons, not all of them could sustain it but none of the following even looked like being consistent AFL players to me under Ayres: -

Scott Stevens
Michael Doughty
Brent Reilly
Kem McGregor (as a key forward)
Ian Perrie
Trent Hentschel

OK, so not the who's who of the club but to me a clear indication of the improvement this club has wrung out of players at all levels since Craig took over.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

That'd be because the players who were already there included Goodwin, McLeod, Edwards, Ricciuto, Rutten, Bock, Hart, Hentschel, Johncock, Bassett and more, and they were all performing at a walk-up start level for a fair old while.

And Skipworth. And Shirley. And Gill. And Biglands. And McGregor. And Doughty. And Perrie. And Massie. And Stevens. And Jericho. Too many crappy players who have had their chances and failed taking up too many spots.

And it's still happening.

Stevens over Davis.
Burton over Walker.

"The team that Craig built" ignores that the likes of Johncock, Rutten, Bock (up till 2010 inclusive) are members of Adelaide's best 22, have all developed and improved under NC, and will bar Bock be there for a while yet. You can't chuck a blanket over them and count them as strikes against Craig, which is what the presented form of analysis is doing.

They aren't strikes against Craig, nor were they presented as strikes against Craig.

The thread is looking at the players Craig brought in AND developed.

 

[Vader]

Edit: Oh yeah, and is VB the only one from that team in the leadership group? One player in seven years. Not enough.

Is it that surprising, given that VB is also the only NC draftee to have played 100 games so far? Thompson is the only other NC recruit to have played 100+ games.

The best of the rest is Porplyzia with 87 games, followed by Douglas on 78.

Is it not normal to have your most experienced players forming the core of your leadership group?

 

[amer]

And Skipworth. And Shirley. And Gill. And Biglands. And McGregor. And Doughty. And Perrie. And Massie. And Stevens. And Jericho. Too many crappy players who have had their chances and failed taking up too many spots.

And it's still happening.

Stevens over Davis.
Burton over Walker.


They aren't strikes against Craig, nor were they presented as strikes against Craig.

The thread is looking at the players Craig brought in AND developed.

They (not the examples you came up with, but mine) -are- counting as strikes against Craig because it's a high number of starting selections that wouldn't (and shouldn't) have budged. We haven't had the right list profile or the time to get a look at this to the extent that this topic is trying to.

 

[Snatchemstrap]

And Skipworth. And Shirley. And Gill. And Biglands. And McGregor. And Doughty. And Perrie. And Massie. And Stevens. And Jericho. Too many crappy players who have had their chances and failed taking up too many spots.

Most of them weren't walk up starts... and the fact they were in and out of the team proved that. Who were the players that should have been picked before these blokes? (yes i know.. Jacky would have deserved to get games over Jericho) Not to mention we were winning a shitload of games and you cant just drop performing players to "give a kid a go" when you are making a push.

Stevens over Davis.
Burton over Walker.

Why the hell should Stevens have been dropped for Davis? Yes.. i wasn't a fan of Davis being dropped but Stevens wasn't the one to make way.

The only time Burton was picked over Tex was when Walker had his head up is own arse. Tex will learn (hopefully soon) that "talent to burn" isn't the only pre-requisite that will get you picked during bad form.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Is it that surprising, given that VB is also the only NC draftee to have played 100 games so far? Thompson is the only other NC recruit to have played 100+ games.

The best of the rest is Porplyzia with 87 games, followed by Douglas on 78.

Is it not normal to have your most experienced players forming the core of your leadership group?

Geez... you're making my argument for me for a change!

So forgetting his half year in 2004 he's coached 141 games... and produced one 100 game player in that time and by your list above barely anyone who has even played half the available matches. Wow. It's worse than I thought. Whether the problem was spotting talent or developing talent doesn't matter... the bottom line is that we didn't get any (or enough, anyway).

Righto... hope you've got your rant goggles on. I've had a shitty day at work so here goes:

Neil Craig is a cheat. He had a great 2005 and 2006 seasons but he CHEATED to get those results.

He inherited a collection of established stars.

Instead of surrounding those stars with a group of young players with potential who might develop into our next generation of stars, he instead surrounded them with a group of mid-range, reliable types who would never, ever be stars but could certainly fill a role when there were more talented players around them to do the real work.

It meant that he didn't have to worry about the inconsistencies and unpredictability of youth. He got very good short term results. He sold out our future though.

Now it has come home to roost. He made the bed and in 2010 he had to lie in it. All his beloved mid-range, unremarkable types played the same unremarkable football but without McLeod, Goodwin, Edwards and Roo to carry the load we suddenly discovered it wasn't good enough.

What about developing the kids, Neil? Errr... well, they'll get games when they're ready... don't want to gift games... everyone is expected to perform... Next generation? We'll worry about that later. We've got premierships to win.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

They (not the examples you came up with, but mine) -are- counting as strikes against Craig because it's a high number of starting selections that wouldn't (and shouldn't) have budged. We haven't had the right list profile or the time to get a look at this to the extent that this topic is trying to.

So you're saying that Neil didn't develop many talented players because he didn't need to? But he could have if he'd wanted to, right?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Most of them weren't walk up starts... and the fact they were in and out of the team proved that. Who were the players that should have been picked before these blokes? (yes i know.. Jacky would have deserved to get games over Jericho) Not to mention we were winning a shitload of games and you cant just drop performing players to "give a kid a go" when you are making a push.

All the players who were receiving all this great development coaching obviously.

What - are you saying that we weren't able to develop any talented players? So there were no talented players to bring in? Better get some new coaches then.

Why the hell should Stevens have been dropped for Davis? Yes.. i wasn't a fan of Davis being dropped but Stevens wasn't the one to make way.

Because when Stevens and Davis both played, it was Davis who matched up on guys like Matthew Pavlich and Josh Kennedy. And did well.

The only time Burton was picked over Tex was when Walker had his head up is own arse. Tex will learn (hopefully soon) that "talent to burn" isn't the only pre-requisite that will get you picked during bad form.

He's been here three years now? If head-up-arse is a problem in Year 3 them perhaps we need to move him on. Obviously a liability.

 

[Vader]

So forgetting his half year in 2004 he's coached 141 games... and produced one 100 game player in that time and by your list above barely anyone who has even played half the available matches. Wow. It's worse than I thought. Whether the problem was spotting talent or developing talent doesn't matter... the bottom line is that we didn't get any (or enough, anyway).

.....

Neil Craig is a cheat. He had a great 2005 and 2006 seasons but he CHEATED to get those results.

Just how is using the team list he inherited supposed to be cheating? Seriously, you've lost me there.

He inherited a collection of established stars.

Instead of surrounding those stars with a group of young players with potential who might develop into our next generation of stars, he instead surrounded them with a group of mid-range, reliable types who would never, ever be stars but could certainly fill a role when there were more talented players around them to do the real work.

Precisely what youngsters was he supposed to be surrounding them with? The only teenager on Adelaide's list at the time of Craig's succession was Fungus Watts. VB played 7 games in his first season and became a permanent fixture in his 2nd. Knights wasn't THAT far behind (he'd be on 92 games if he hadn't missed most of 2010 through injury). Meesen was a dud, and Maric has come along about as quickly as you'd expect from a young ruckman.

I'm sorry, but your rant (as usual) is completely lacking in logic (said with best Bill Lawry voice in mind).

Neil Craig wasn't able to play youngsters in those 05/06 sides because he just didn't have any to play - thank-you Gary Ayres!

It meant that he didn't have to worry about the inconsistencies and unpredictability of youth. He got very good short term results. He sold out our future though.

His mandate is to use the weapons at his disposal to achieve the greatest success he can every year. That means selecting the best possible team each and every week, with the sole exception being once finals are no longer mathematically possible - and the only time that's happened has been in 2010.

He has NOT sold out the future. On the contrary, he's set us up very nicely thank-you.

Now it has come home to roost. He made the bed and in 2010 he had to lie in it. All his beloved mid-range, unremarkable types played the same unremarkable football but without McLeod, Goodwin, Edwards and Roo to carry the load we suddenly discovered it wasn't good enough.

Where he made his bed was failing to cull 2 of Hentschel, Burton and Edwards last year. That, as far as I can tell, is his only major list management failure. The rest of it is the result of your delusional mind.

What about developing the kids, Neil? Errr... well, they'll get games when they're ready... don't want to gift games... everyone is expected to perform... Next generation? We'll worry about that later. We've got premierships to win.

The next generation has been brought along as quickly as they could manage. Sadly, the middle generation was completely AWOL (thank-you Gary Ayres), but the youngsters recruited under Craig have been developed at a very good rate.

Get over your obsession.

 

[Snatchemstrap]

All the players who were receiving all this great development coaching obviously.

What - are you saying that we weren't able to develop any talented players? So there were no talented players to bring in? Better get some new coaches then.

LOL, hate to break it to you Carl but most of "your duds" you listed were fringe players.. why? because they weren't that great. Craig also inherited these players.. he didn't recruit them.. and whoever was recruiting them weren't under Craig's watch cause he wasn't the coach. However players like Vince, Van Berlo, Porplyzia, Douglas, Knights were getting blooded.

It cracks me up how you think every single drafted or rookie listed player should have been playing. The fringe players got some games because they were deemed to be able to hold down roles (that your kiddies couldn't) to help the team win.. even with development players in the 22. We wouldn't have won so many games otherwise.. and I'm sure you were enjoying those wins.

Because when Stevens and Davis both played, it was Davis who matched up on guys like Matthew Pavlich and Josh Kennedy. And did well.

Totally agree.. 100% , and Steven's was outstanding in doing his role of shutting down opposition forward movements.. floating in front of players like Pavlich and Kennedy to take contested marks.. playing up the ground.. and making the ever present Signature Stevens f*** up that we all love seeing so much.

They were playing two different roles mate.. and both playing well. Davis shouldn't have been dropped... but Stevens wasn't the one to make way for Davis coming back in. If you think he was the one to make way.. I'm sorry and hope the surgeons can remove those blinkers before the skin completely grows over

He's been here three years now? If head-up-arse is a problem in Year 3 them perhaps we need to move him on. Obviously a liability.

Hmmm.. I wonder if you'll ever hold little Taylie accountable for his personal actions and lack of heart.. or will it remain Craig and Co.'s fault forever..

I'm hoping walker finds it soon.. whether he finds it himself or someone gives it to him in a yummy taste he responds to... otherwise he will be another Jericho.

Hmmm.. who was that Jericho bloke.. Oh thats right, the dude with plenty of ability and kicked some ass in the SANFL.. but had no ticker or success in the AFL. Must have been Craig's fault too (he was just amazing under Ayres).

 

[Crow-mo]

Vader I wish you'd stop peddling this 1 teenager horeshit, which is a deeply flawed concept, as has been shown many times. a discredited argument doesn't become valid again in front of a new argument.

a player is drafted at 18, he'll typically spend his first year as 19 yr old. by his second year he's pushing 20, though you might get few months extra depending on his birthday. so ****ing what?

there is a limit to how many teenagers can ever be on a list, even if it were a valid measurement.

craig had young players when he took over, delisted some too; drafted and refused to play some too.

maybe shouldn't have drafted bernie vince or all those spud mature aged rookies cause they upset the teenager index