Under The Pump

[Stiffy_18]

Nah, I reckon I've seen the light Stifler.

I for one fully expect Dogga to shake off the 'soft passenger' tag I so fairly slapped on him in the past and stamp his authority all over the ruck position this year...

 

[tribey]

So of course we have a number of players under the pump, but it's pointless to worry about that right now.

I see your point, the list is set now and everyone needs to perform and improve themselves regardless of who they are, from McLeod to Mattner, Ricciuto to Reilly.

At the end of August/September the annual post-mortem will have revealed which players have failed, surprised and performed as expected.

 

[jo172]

People get stuck into Sarge and forget to realise Doughty has been around for just as long and still hasn't cemented a spot in the 22.

Stiffy, we're just going to have to deal with this, IAN PERRIE DEBUTED IN 1998, that is 7 years and finally now he's our first choice CHF by default (Stevens injury), the keeping on of people like Perrie and Doughty on our list is our biggest problem, we cannot reward promising players who are too often meiocre, At any other club in the competition these two would not of lasted so long yet for some reason we are looking to Perrie as the saviour of our forward line.

Ian Perrie will never be more than a filler, remember when Port first entered the AFL they had a filler CHF in Poole but no they bit the bullet and played their young gun Tredera at CHF and look where he is now, Watts could be a Crows Tredera but it will hasten his development if he plays CHF NOW! Letting him develop in a pocket while Sarge holds down CHF is a short term fix that will not see us in premiership contention in 5 years however if Ferg is to start at CHF now in 5 years time he'll have 100 games of starting at CHF in the AFL, a good way to build any premiership team around.

The AFC MUST stop rewarding mediocorty (sp?)

Glad I Got that of my chest!

 

[Jerome]

I expect us to have about 5-6 picks in the draft this year which means 5-6 delistings.

I agree with that.

I also think that if some of our rookies have a good 2005 we could possibly turn over 8 - 10 players this year. I'm including Clarke's retirement in that estimate.

I am hoping our rookies perform well and push some of our other passengers off the list.

I like the original list and would definatley add Bock.

 

[outback jack]

why was begley resigned, apart from craigy not wanting to have a good yr, is there actually a good reason??

That list is full of either wasted talent or absolutely no talent, craigy has some explaining as to why more werent delisted. My opinion of him, has further dropped after looking at that, i didnt realise how bad it actually was.

 

[macca23]

I agree with that.

I also think that if some of our rookies have a good 2005 we could possibly turn over 8 - 10 players this year. I'm including Clarke's retirement in that estimate.

I am hoping our rookies perform well and push some of our other passengers off the list.

I like the original list and would definatley add Bock.

Best lot of rookies we've had for some time, Jerome (okay Dave W I haven't forgotten 2002 )

Andrews, Nye, Hinge and Griffin could all find their way onto our list at year end if they have good SANFL seasons.

That's asking a bit much, but there's a very good chance that 2 of them might.

However there's a good chance that they would be offset by retirements - probably Clarke and Mark Stevens (hope not).

That brings us back to 6 draft picks ( 5 National, 1 pre-season) which means that at the end of the year 6 duds will be delisted.

Matthew Smith and 5 others.

 

[tribey]

craigy has some explaining as to why more werent delisted.

Carey - Retired
Smart - Retired
Burns - Retired
M. Stevens - Will he/won't he retire?
Stenglein - Demanding a move
Gallagher - Delisted

We couldn't really afford to delist more given the outs we had to forcibly make combined with existing contractual obligations (Shirley 1 more year to run, etc).

As a result a few in the gun were given undeserved reprieves.

 

[outback jack]

stevens was pretty much always going on, we have no one to replace him.
stenglein was directly replaced by thompson, whos ready to go.


so basically 4 spots for yougsters were opened up, which is a very, very soft option. Pagan got rid of twelve last yr and 16 the yr before, that was the number that has to go. We have to experience the pain either way, its just being drawn out now, for a longer period. And we will get mid-range draft picks which is a real shame.

what does begley provide that a youngster does not?? Both will have dodgey bodies, and a youngster can handle a HBF if hes a decent talent, not a tough decision really.

 

[drakeyv2]

Not trying to be rude, but what is the point of a list like that?
I mean so ***** what?

You rude bastard

I started the thread after having a look at the crows booklet that came with Sunday's Lecornu ads & TV book.

Although I always knew we had some "ordinary" players in the squad, I was suddenly struck by how many players we had that MUST be on their last chance.

I reckon 15 is an extraordinary number.

 

[arrowman]

...And we will get mid-range draft picks which is a real shame.

You mean, picks like van berlo and Meesen?

...what does begley provide that a youngster does not?? Both will have dodgey bodies, and a youngster can handle a HBF if hes a decent talent, not a tough decision really.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - what is the point in replacing an ordinary, experienced "depth" player with a youngster at draft pick 99? That kid can't be delisted for two years, whereas the "depth" player can be delisted next year.

Suppose we had delisted, say, 10 players in 2004, and replaced them with draft picks in the 80-100 range. Who do we delist in 2005? We can't delist any of the 2004 draftees, presumably the only players we have left are decent players because we cut so deep in 2004 - if we do as you say we have effectively precluded ourselves from the 2005 draft.

You can't just wish away the time it takes to rejuvenate the list.

Oh, and also as I have said before - NC is not deliberately stuffing up the playing list just to make himself look good in 2005. No matter what you think of his coaching abilities, to accuse him of that is just dumb and you shoot down your own credibility when you do it.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

You mean, picks like van berlo and Meesen?
I've said this before and I'll say it again - what is the point in replacing an ordinary, experienced "depth" player with a youngster at draft pick 99? That kid can't be delisted for two years, whereas the "depth" player can be delisted next year.

Suppose we had delisted, say, 10 players in 2004, and replaced them with draft picks in the 80-100 range. Who do we delist in 2005? We can't delist any of the 2004 draftees, presumably the only players we have left are decent players because we cut so deep in 2004 - if we do as you say we have effectively precluded ourselves from the 2005 draft.

You can't just wish away the time it takes to rejuvenate the list.

Oh, and also as I have said before - NC is not deliberately stuffing up the playing list just to make himself look good in 2005. No matter what you think of his coaching abilities, to accuse him of that is just dumb and you shoot down your own credibility when you do it.

Beautifully said. Spot on.

 

[Stiffy_18]

You mean, picks like van berlo and Meesen?
I've said this before and I'll say it again - what is the point in replacing an ordinary, experienced "depth" player with a youngster at draft pick 99? That kid can't be delisted for two years, whereas the "depth" player can be delisted next year.

Suppose we had delisted, say, 10 players in 2004, and replaced them with draft picks in the 80-100 range. Who do we delist in 2005? We can't delist any of the 2004 draftees, presumably the only players we have left are decent players because we cut so deep in 2004 - if we do as you say we have effectively precluded ourselves from the 2005 draft.

You can't just wish away the time it takes to rejuvenate the list.

Oh, and also as I have said before - NC is not deliberately stuffing up the playing list just to make himself look good in 2005. No matter what you think of his coaching abilities, to accuse him of that is just dumb and you shoot down your own credibility when you do it.

Its like talking to a brick wall isn't it?

Carlton and Adelaide situations are completely different but you have more chance of winning lotto than you do of explaining that to some people

 

[Crow-mosone]

You rude bastard

I started the thread after having a look at the crows booklet that came with Sunday's Lecornu ads & TV book.

Although I always knew we had some "ordinary" players in the squad, I was suddenly struck by how many players we had that MUST be on their last chance.

I reckon 15 is an extraordinary number.

fair enough

 

[outback jack]

You mean, picks like van berlo and Meesen?
I've said this before and I'll say it again - what is the point in replacing an ordinary, experienced "depth" player with a youngster at draft pick 99? That kid can't be delisted for two years, whereas the "depth" player can be delisted next year.

what you mean picks like van berlo and meeson? wouldnt you rather griffen or tambling or franklin etc of course you would. And it wouldnt be pick 99 it would be 60 odd, and this is where you can pinch good players, and take ones that could of gone higher next yr. Have a look at it, many good players get taken very late. This is where jimmy fantasia should be earning his money.

Suppose we had delisted, say, 10 players in 2004, and replaced them with draft picks in the 80-100 range. Who do we delist in 2005? We can't delist any of the 2004 draftees, presumably the only players we have left are decent players because we cut so deep in 2004 - if we do as you say we have effectively precluded ourselves from the 2005 draft..

off the top of my head, i think we could of got rid of

ladhams
carey
burns
begley
smart
doughty
massie
shirely

and left players like bode, skipworth, schuback etc to prove themselves for this yr. That does not stop us in the 2005 draft you're talking shi te. There are plenty of player that do not deserve to be there that need pressure put on them.

You can't just wish away the time it takes to rejuvenate the list..

yes a lot longer now. Pagan showed that if you are proactive and take no nonsense then it can be done in 2 yrs. It will take us longer, cause of we are turning them over slower.

Oh, and also as I have said before - NC is not deliberately stuffing up the playing list just to make himself look good in 2005. No matter what you think of his coaching abilities, to accuse him of that is just dumb and you shoot down your own credibility when you do it.

when did i say he is deliberately stuffing up the list?? He isnt. If we had got rid of the lot i highlighted above, and played youngsters we'd be lucky to win 7-8 games, but we'd get 22 games into out 20ish players, 10-15 in the meeson van berlo types and high draft picks to build a team around.

This obviously, would not look very good for NC to have such a poor yr after a dodgey appointment, the pressure would grow. So instead, hes decided to keep and resign players that realistically have no long term future with us, and we will finish mid-table with guys like begley and massie getting 10-15 games, the reality is they wont be there in 2-3 yrs. Thats pretty much how it is.

 

[outback jack]

Its like talking to a brick wall isn't it?

Carlton and Adelaide situations are completely different but you have more chance of winning lotto than you do of explaining that to some people

good one stiff, i hope you dont complain about sly comments anymore

perhaps you would like to explain in a logical manner, how carlton and us are so different, despite having a coach that has the confidence to make tough decisions and back himself.

 

[drakeyv2]

You mean, picks like van berlo and Meesen?
I've said this before and I'll say it again - what is the point in replacing an ordinary, experienced "depth" player with a youngster at draft pick 99? That kid can't be delisted for two years, whereas the "depth" player can be delisted next year.

Suppose we had delisted, say, 10 players in 2004, and replaced them with draft picks in the 80-100 range. Who do we delist in 2005? We can't delist any of the 2004 draftees, presumably the only players we have left are decent players because we cut so deep in 2004 - if we do as you say we have effectively precluded ourselves from the 2005 draft.

You can't just wish away the time it takes to rejuvenate the list.

Oh, and also as I have said before - NC is not deliberately stuffing up the playing list just to make himself look good in 2005. No matter what you think of his coaching abilities, to accuse him of that is just dumb and you shoot down your own credibility when you do it.

Hang on, your saying we are better off having an "experienced" player who isn't good enough than an inexperienced player who may be good enough.

Posters here have been going on about how good Hinge, Nye & Griffin look & how they will probably be elevated at the end of the year. These guys would have all been available with late picks if we had delisted more players last year. You can't have it both ways. If they are good enough to elevate then, they were good enough to draft. We also could have drafted Danyle Pearce who may have been an answer to our lack of crumbing forwards.

Also, the way I see our list, if we delisted 10 (I'm not sure where you got that no. from) then we would still have another 5 duds for next year. Add to that the places made available by the probable retirement of Clarke & Stevens.

My understanding is that the reason we did not cut deeper last year was because so few were out of contract. From memory other than those who retired, it was M. Stevens, Begley & Gallagher. I would have cut all 3. Yeh I know everyone loves Stevens & some like a Begley but I would have cut 'em.

I agree that it takes time to rejuvenate a list but we should have cut deeper last year. By not doing it we have added another year to the time it will take us.

I mean we re-contracted Smith for christs sake.

 

[arrowman]

what you mean picks like van berlo and meeson? wouldnt you rather griffen or tambling or franklin etc of course you would. And it wouldnt be pick 99 it would be 60 odd, and this is where you can pinch good players, and take ones that could of gone higher next yr. Have a look at it, many good players get taken very late. This is where jimmy fantasia should be earning his money.

OK, I exaggerated, it would be in the 60-70s.

But hang about - on the one hand you're telling us that pick 1 >>>> Pick 8, then you go on to say we can pick up good players at pick 60+. Get your story straight.

Yes, you can pinch good players in the 60s. That doesn't mean we should conduct wholesale delistings of contracted players just to give ourselves those picks.

off the top of my head, i think we could of got rid of

ladhams
carey
burns
begley
smart
doughty
massie
shirely

OK, that's five delistings on top of the one we actually did. Leaving aside any argument about the particular names, that's not the sort of wholesale slaughter you were proposing in Oct-Nov last year, and that (proposed wholesale delistings) is what I was basing my comments on.

...and left players like bode, skipworth, schuback etc to prove themselves for this yr.

So you've made a judgement on those who cannot possibly prove themseves this year (eg Massie, Ladhams etc) and those who get another year (Bode etc). That's your opinion. Other people have other opinions. Which 4-5 players do you pick for delisting at the end of 2004 (to be replaced by draft picks in the 60-70 range), and which do you keep "to see what happens"? Or do you take your 5 draft picks in 2004, then another 5 in 2005, plus the rookie list promotions for a total turnover of close to 10 players at the end of 2005, based on actual performance (or last chance with chronic injury) in 2005?

That does not stop us in the 2005 draft you're talking shi te. There are plenty of player that do not deserve to be there that need pressure put on them.

We have 4 rookies and let's say 3-5 draft picks (apart from retirements) for 2005. That's 7-9 possible delistings. Why should we delist 4-5 players now, forcing us to cut even deeper at the end of 2005 to take advantage of all those promotions and picks, when we can see who comes up under pressure (as opposed to just making a call in advance based on personal opinion) and make the changes then?

when did i say he is deliberately stuffing up the list?? He isnt.

Don't hide behind the fact that I used strong words to describe your attitude...

....This obviously, would not look very good for NC to have such a poor yr after a dodgey appointment, the pressure would grow. So instead, hes decided to keep and resign players that realistically have no long term future with us, and we will finish mid-table with guys like begley and massie getting 10-15 games, the reality is they wont be there in 2-3 yrs. Thats pretty much how it is.

In other words, you are saying that NC has decided not to do what would be best for the club, in order to preserve his personal reputation.

That is saying, no matter how many games you play with it, that NC puts himself before the club and is deliberately making decisions that are in his own short term interests rather than the club's long term interests. And that, sir, is patently rubbish.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Looks like it Siffy.

Better leave it to AM to fight it out and we take over if he faulters.

 

[arrowman]

Hang on, your saying we are better off having an "experienced" player who isn't good enough than an inexperienced player who may be good enough.

I'm saying that we can make a call on 10-15 players at the end of 2005, probably 5-10 of those will be delisting candidates - instead of making calls now on how we think they'll go, replacing them with equally unproven players (draft picks).

Yes, I know, we've already seen these players (Bode, Doughty, Begley, whoever is on your personal list) but there's a range of factors from game time through coach to injury that can be settled in 2005 rather than make judgements now. I'd say we should make the judgements now if there was a clear benefit in doing so that outweighed the risk but I don't see that.

Posters here have been going on about how good Hinge, Nye & Griffin look & how they will probably be elevated at the end of the year. These guys would have all been available with late picks if we had delisted more players last year. You can't have it both ways. If they are good enough to elevate then, they were good enough to draft.

But we don't know yet if they're good enough to elevate - or draft. They're "freebies" - we get to put our foot on them for one year and add them to the round 1-4 draft picks.

Also, the way I see our list, if we delisted 10 (I'm not sure where you got that no. from)

Chris McDermott and, IIRC, Outback jack from Oct-Nov last year.

..then we would still have another 5 duds for next year.

Only if you assume that every player on the original list in this thread is an irredeemable dud. Footy logic tells us that 25-50% of them will pull their fingers out and/or improve their game, and turn out to be valuable players.

...I agree that it takes time to rejuvenate a list but we should have cut deeper last year. By not doing it we have added another year to the time it will take us.

I don't think we have outright "added a year", I think we have balanced the rebuilding load over a couple of years. 5 more delistings this year, 5 more low draft picks, and we'd still be gambling, just gambling in a different way - and, most importantly, we'd be committing ourselves for 2 years to each player.

Swings and roundabouts. How many of the current second tier will come up under a new coach, etc, vs how many of the draft picks (in the 60-70 range) will turn out to be OK. I think the former is the safer bet.

I mean we re-contracted Smith for christs sake.

Well, yeah...

 

[arrowman]

...Better leave it to AM to fight it out and we take over if he faulters.

Well, there's f kin team work for you

Faltering now - back in a couple of hours.

 

[outback jack]

OK, I exaggerated, it would be in the 60-70s.

But hang about - on the one hand you're telling us that pick 1 >>>> Pick 8, then you go on to say we can pick up good players at pick 60+. Get your story straight.

Yes, you can pinch good players in the 60s. That doesn't mean we should conduct wholesale delistings of contracted players just to give ourselves those picks.

you know how it is there is always that top bunch that are better than the rest, like reiwoldt, judd, etc they go top4or5 and after that its always a bit of a gamble.

We wont ever get a pick in that top bunch now, it will be around the eight mark again.

OK, that's five delistings on top of the one we actually did. Leaving aside any argument about the particular names, that's not the sort of wholesale slaughter you were proposing in Oct-Nov last year, and that (proposed wholesale delistings) is what I was basing my comments on..

yes i would have no problem with more going, although five more is quite a lot, we dont exactly have a rich talent loaded list that we are cutting into. We could have easily delisted 10, 7 ,5 over the next three yrs, no prob. Now it will it will just take longer.

So you've made a judgement on those who cannot possibly prove themseves this year (eg Massie, Ladhams etc) and those who get another year (Bode etc). That's your opinion. Other people have other opinions. Which 4-5 players do you pick for delisting at the end of 2004 (to be replaced by draft picks in the 60-70 range), and which do you keep "to see what happens"? Or do you take your 5 draft picks in 2004, then another 5 in 2005, plus the rookie list promotions for a total turnover of close to 10 players at the end of 2005, based on actual performance (or last chance with chronic injury) in 2005?..

the club can make their choice on whoever they want, i dont care who, cause there is about 15 that wont be there in say 3 yrs anyway. That is a list of guys that i think would be first on the chopping block. There are plenty on top of that.

We have 4 rookies and let's say 3-5 draft picks (apart from retirements) for 2005. That's 7-9 possible delistings. Why should we delist 4-5 players now, forcing us to cut even deeper at the end of 2005 to take advantage of all those promotions and picks, when we can see who comes up under pressure (as opposed to just making a call in advance based on personal opinion) and make the changes then?

cause they havent performed consistently for the club, due to a lack of intensity or effort, or they just dont have what it takes at AFL level.

Don't hide behind the fact that I used strong words to describe your attitude...

In other words, you are saying that NC has decided not to do what would be best for the club, in order to preserve his personal reputation.


That is saying, no matter how many games you play with it, that NC puts himself before the club and is deliberately making decisions that are in his own short term interests rather than the club's long term interests. And that, sir, is patently rubbish.

he isnt deliberately screwing the club that would serve no interest, but yes, you cant tell me that resigning begley serves any long term interests of the club. NC is doing what he requires, looking after this yr, ppl would not be happy finishing bottom4 which would happen with mass a delisting. So he keeps players that shouldnt be there, just about everyone thinks more should have gone.

And all coaches that reach AFL level are self-serving, if they werent then they would be happy coaching 3rd div amateurs. Thats why they so often screw the club up, blinded by short term success instead of looking 10 yrs into the future. We were certainly hurt in this way.

 

[arrowman]

OK, we're starting to go in circles on most of this so I'll leave most of it - just this bit...

...he isnt deliberately screwing the club that would serve no interest, but yes, you cant tell me that resigning begley serves any long term interests of the club. NC is doing what he requires, looking after this yr, ppl would not be happy finishing bottom4 which would happen with mass a delisting. So he keeps players that shouldnt be there, just about everyone thinks more should have gone.

That's right, people would not be happy. The club, the sponsors, the members. Ask any club CEO whether they would, if they had a choice, adopt a path that would see them bottom 4 for 2 years, or 9-12 for 2 years. As Steven Trigg said once on the subject of clubs tanking for draft picks - "you don't do that, you stuff your footy club". I know it's not the same as tanking, but the principle is the same.

But in any case I do not believe that the only or main reason they didn't delist more was just to hold position on the ladder. There are other reasons, as I have explained.

...And all coaches that reach AFL level are self-serving, if they werent then they would be happy coaching 3rd div amateurs. Thats why they so often screw the club up, blinded by short term success instead of looking 10 yrs into the future. We were certainly hurt in this way.

10 years?! No one at a footy club plans for 10 years into the future - not in terms of the playing list anyway - it's impossible.

Yes, clubs (not just coaches) sometimes stuff themselves up with a short-sighted attitude (eg Adelaide 2001-2004, but let's not forget if that had paid off with a flag we wouldn't be so critical now) - but that is not evidence that NC is being shortsighted now. In fact everything he has done could just as easily be interpreted as being sound long term thinking. Depending on which perspective you're coming from.

I think that'll be it for me on this subject (reserving the right to jump back in if you say something I really want to get my teeth into )

 

[outback jack]

OK, we're starting to go in circles on most of this so I'll leave most of it - just this bit...That's right, people would not be happy. The club, the sponsors, the members. Ask any club CEO whether they would, if they had a choice, adopt a path that would see them bottom 4 for 2 years, or 9-12 for 2 years. As Steven Trigg said once on the subject of clubs tanking for draft picks - "you don't do that, you stuff your footy club". I know it's not the same as tanking, but the principle is the same.

But in any case I do not believe that the only or main reason they didn't delist more was just to hold position on the ladder. There are other reasons, as I have explained.
10 years?! No one at a footy club plans for 10 years into the future - not in terms of the playing list anyway - it's impossible.

Yes, clubs (not just coaches) sometimes stuff themselves up with a short-sighted attitude (eg Adelaide 2001-2004, but let's not forget if that had paid off with a flag we wouldn't be so critical now) - but that is not evidence that NC is being shortsighted now. In fact everything he has done could just as easily be interpreted as being sound long term thinking. Depending on which perspective you're coming from.

I think that'll be it for me on this subject (reserving the right to jump back in if you say something I really want to get my teeth into )

kevin sheedy is one who most definitely plans for the future. Anyway, it will be interesting to see at the yrs end what the like likes of begley have added to the club. But as you have said, i think we shall agree to disagree on this one.

 

[arrowman]

kevin sheedy is one who most definitely plans for the future. Anyway, it will be interesting to see at the yrs end what the like likes of begley have added to the club. But as you have said, i think we shall agree to disagree on this one.

<--- Teeth.

I don't think Sheedy plans longer term more than any other coach; it's just that he has shown his ability to build successful teams, over and again, and he has had the club's backing. I don't think he plans 10 years ahead, as I said before, no coach can.

Sheedy lasted at Essendon post 1993 because of his track record and because he got an upward trend going again. Matthews didn't last at Collingwood after 1990 because - well, all sorts of reasons, I suppose, but probably not because he wasn't planning long term.

And between 1993 and 2000 (or at least, 1995-2000, for which I have the records at hand) Essendon finished bottom four just once. Other than that, their lowest finish was 8th.

I'd love to do the study but I suspect that there is very little evidence to show that bottom 4 finishes are a necessary or sufficient precursor to success (say, Preliminary Final or greater). For every St Kilda, there is an Essendon. (Or a Port Adelaide, for that matter).

 

[Cap]

I think adealide is different from Essendon in a lot of respects, but I think Adealide can achieve long term success but smart drafting and trading. Which I think to a point Essendon has done also, Once you have a talented group lets face it you can't afford all of them, So the trick is to trade them for Maximum Value. Adealide has the benefit of the "I want to go home to Victoria" Factor, They can recruit a player for 1 top 20 pick this year and if they develop them well enough trade them back to Victoria for 2 picks or a young player or a mixture.

So what NC has to do is look at his list - see who they can afford to keep and see who they can trade back to Vic for a profit - we have the choice of 10 clubs so the price can be pushed up depending on the demand ! were as the player coming home has only 2 teams to do the bargaining with !