"Voss to assess Brisbane list"

[LIONHART]

i have a number of separate points to make on this matter -

i have no problem with voss having a list assessment as long as he doesn't see the need to give up valueable draft picks for more recycled duds. he learnt the last time (hopefully!!) that there are no 'quick fixes'.
those calling for hawsleys delisting, I recall last year (I will stand corrected though) that he was among a list of resignings announced. I noted surprise by some at the time, that they would have resigned him.
those candidates for delisting, imo, are those who have been fit & playing in the seconds for an extended period without making it or being selected for senior selection. however these guys form the back-up (in case of injury) or second tier players & need to be as confident & capable to play seniors as they can be, so there is limited drop-off in standard. There is always a fine line btwn keeping them on or discarding them. It is important though that we don't 'throw the baby out with bathwater'

 

[The Flying Belgian]

i have a number of separate points to make on this matter -

i have no problem with voss having a list assessment as long as he doesn't see the need to give up valuable draft picks for more recycled duds. he learnt the last time (hopefully!!) that there are no 'quick fixes'.
those calling for hawsleys delisting, I recall last year (I will stand corrected though) that he was among a list of re-signings announced. I noted surprise by some at the time, that they would have resigned him.
those candidates for delisting, imo, are those who have been fit & playing in the seconds for an extended period without making it or being selected for senior selection. however these guys form the back-up (in case of injury) or second tier players & need to be as confident & capable to play seniors as they can be, so there is limited drop-off in standard. There is always a fine line btwn keeping them on or discarding them. It is important though that we don't 'throw the baby out with bathwater'

A couple of the recycled duds have been among our most valuable players this year. In fact I'd rank Maguire, Raines and Staker as wins giving that recruiting "binge" a 50% success rate, mush better than than your chances with the draft. That said, I doubt we'll be looking at beefing up that middle age bracket again too much. Anyway, that's for another thread.

Hawksley is an interesting one. He seems to save his best form for late in the season, but I just don't think we can carry that inconsistency. Not when he doesn't many weapons: decision-making - poor, composure - average, skills - poor, hardness - very good, fitness - good. Not a great report card. The only reason I could see to have another look at him is with him playing across HF again. And I think last year some were amazed he wasn't cut then, but surmised that he was under contract until the end of this year.

 

[Grimreepah]

I used to think that the club had a position based model, and the bottom names were delisted, eg.

Key defenders
1. player a
2. player b
3. player c
4. player d
_________
5. player e
6. player f

In this hypothetical it is determined that only four key defenders are required, so players e and f are let go. However last year we saw McCauley and McCulloch delisted despite being high on the list. McCauley was probably at number 2.

1. Leuenberger
__________
Clark (traded)
2. McCauley
3. McCulloch
4. Charman

Which shows that a lack of depth in that position may not save a player from being let go. It also might be worth looking back at Kerr's list assessments to see what the objectives were and which ones were achieved and which ones weren't. Skilled half back flankers were on the agenda and we are now better placed in that area. On the other hand key position depth was a priority and that still remains a problem. From there we may be able to work out which current players fit into the future plans and which players don't.

 

[whatboutbob]

7. Bartlett - the question is whether his reserves form is good enough to warrant an opportunity. I had the impression he was still catching up on fitness.

He certainly spent a fair bit of time with hands on knees last weekend.

Hawksley is an interesting one. He seems to save his best form for late in the season, but I just don't think we can carry that inconsistency. Not when he doesn't many weapons: decision-making - poor, composure - average, skills - poor, hardness - very good, fitness - good. Not a great report card. The only reason I could see to have another look at him is with him playing across HF again. And I think last year some were amazed he wasn't cut then, but surmised that he was under contract until the end of this year.

Agree with your assessment of "Seniors" Hawksley. However IMO for most of this season in the ressies his decision making, skills and composure have been good to very good. Now, it may very well be the case that he looks the goods once the pressure on him is eased off, and his efficacy may be exaggerated in my mind because it was not what I expected of him, but I've seen enough to want him to get one more shot.

Would be interested to hear from the ressies regulars on this one, to see if it is just me.

 

[Haso]

He certainly spent a fair bit of time with hands on knees last weekend.

It was mentioned that he was struggling. His tweets were a bit cryptic yesterday as well. There is a question mark, but I am convinced that he is another that will be given a chance in the next few weeks.

 

[LIONHART]

He certainly spent a fair bit of time with hands on knees last weekend.




Agree with your assessment of "Seniors" Hawksley. However IMO for most of this season in the ressies his decision making, skills and composure have been good to very good. Now, it may very well be the case that he looks the goods once the pressure on him is eased off, and his efficacy may be exaggerated in my mind because it was not what I expected of him, but I've seen enough to want him to get one more shot.

Would be interested to hear from the ressies regulars on this one, to see if it is just me.

My understanding is that the one senior game he played this year was the best game he has played at the club, yet despite that he was dropped the next week. he is borderline imo, he could go either way.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

If he was brought into play a Nicoski-type role across half-forward, I'd be willing to give him another shot. And call me softie, but I still like to see guys who've had their papers stamped already get a token last game. As long as the season has been written off.

 

[PattyKwasagun]

Hawksley missed the Suns game due to injury though, so I'd be very surprised to see him come in this week.

The two players that it seems everyone agrees will be cut are Buchanan and Sheldon. Any arguments that play in the favour of either of them? I'd think not, although at the start of last year SOKS did seem a probable best 22 player for the foreseeable future (albeit to the frustration of many).

I also think those expecting stiller to stay on due to his experience are a bit off the mark. In other years I could see it happening, but people have to be cut, and if it came down to him or someone like O'Brien, I've got little doubt who'd go.

 

[Haso]

Hawksley missed the Suns game due to injury though, so I'd be very surprised to see him come in this week.

The two players that it seems everyone agrees will be cut are Buchanan and Sheldon. Any arguments that play in the favour of either of them? I'd think not, although at the start of last year SOKS did seem a probable best 22 player for the foreseeable future (albeit to the frustration of many).

I also think those expecting stiller to stay on due to his experience are a bit off the mark. In other years I could see it happening, but people have to be cut, and if it came down to him or someone like O'Brien, I've got little doubt who'd go.

I agree PK. This year is where the brutality starts in terms of list management, and whereas in the last few years we have held on to the average players who still got games, this is where it starts getting a bit more cut-throat.

 

[whatboutbob]

I was reminded recently that Harding was given every chance for it all to click, right up to and including the Carlton final, then was delisted.

Granted, our list has changed significantly since then and it was Vossy's first year, but I found it a handy reminder that those 'in the gun' aren't necessarily stuck in the magoos.

 

[wabaa]

If he was brought into play a Nicoski-type role across half-forward, I'd be willing to give him another shot. And call me softie, but I still like to see guys who've had their papers stamped already get a token last game. As long as the season has been written off.

I don't think we're at the stage of writing the season off. Sure it's highly likely we're not playing finals - but we need to be putting in every effort to win this week's game and the week after and the week after.

 

[karix]

I don't think we're at the stage of writing the season off. Sure it's highly likely we're not playing finals - but we need to be putting in every effort to win this week's game and the week after and the week after.

There is no way we should sacrifice team development for an unrealistic tilt at finals. Nor should we be risking long term injuries to players to attempt the same thing. We are still in a rebuilding phase which means that we have to try new players to determine whether they have a future at the club.

Every game we play the players will be putting in every effort to win, that goes without saying, but surely you don't want to jeopardize the long term success of the team to scrape into the 8 and go no further.

 

[wabaa]

There is no way we should sacrifice team development for an unrealistic tilt at finals. Nor should we be risking long term injuries to players to attempt the same thing. We are still in a rebuilding phase which means that we have to try new players to determine whether they have a future at the club.

Every game we play the players will be putting in every effort to win, that goes without saying, but surely you don't want to jeopardize the long term success of the team to scrape into the 8 and go no further.

I disagree. I'm making the trip over to Perth on Thursday to watch my footy team play. It is my expectation as a supporter that they should field the best 22 and do everything within their power to win the game. It is my expectation every week that they'll do whatever they can to win the game. I agree that you don't play injured players - that's a given. But I certainly don't agree that we just throw away any chance of winning by not putting the best team on the park. They have six months of an off-season, they play four weeks of pre-season and 22 rounds of competitive football. I want them to use both of those periods for the desired outcomes. The off-season and pre-season to develop and train, and the 22 rounds to win games of football by putting the best available team on the park every week. If that's not the case, and we're going to use the last six weeks as getting ready for next year, let's be really clear that this is the case so supporters don't spend their hard-earned going to the game expecting anything else.

 

[karix]

I disagree. I'm making the trip over to Perth on Thursday to watch my footy team play. It is my expectation as a supporter that they should field the best 22 and do everything within their power to win the game. It is my expectation every week that they'll do whatever they can to win the game. I agree that you don't play injured players - that's a given. But I certainly don't agree that we just throw away any chance of winning by not putting the best team on the park. They have six months of an off-season, they play four weeks of pre-season and 22 rounds of competitive football. I want them to use both of those periods for the desired outcomes. The off-season and pre-season to develop and train, and the 22 rounds to win games of football by putting the best available team on the park every week. If that's not the case, and we're going to use the last six weeks as getting ready for next year, let's be really clear that this is the case so supporters don't spend their hard-earned going to the game expecting anything else.

You're obviously welcome to your opinion, but I think it's very short sighted and detrimental to the long term success of the team. It's like trying to win a skirmish even if it costs you the war.

I want to see my team win grand finals again. They will not do that by exclusively playing their best 22 uninjured players every week. I'm not saying play that we should turf out all our experience and throw a team of 18 year olds with less than 10 games on the park. But if we follow your logic, young players only get a shot if the 'best' person for their position is out due to injury. Injury which you push more players towards by playing them week in and week out without proper management of their bodies. This also means we will have no depth because other than the best 22 the rest of the list will just play in the ressies with short runs in the firsts when they step in for someone who is injured.

Pre-season and off season training is great, but it's not the same as match experience and we need to get as much match experience into the our younger players as possible so that instead of having a best 22 of AFL quality players we have a legitimate best 28 or 30, which is what you realistically need to make it through finals and into the big event.

I don't want my team just trying to win their home and away game every week. I want my team, its players, it coaches and support staff doing everything they can to get back to winning grand finals again as soon as possible. If that means we go through the pain of losing in the home and away seasons leading up to that, so be it. The glory of grand finals victory and the dominance that often surrounds that time is worth it.

If you only support your team to see them win then you're missing out of the joy of supporting your team to see them grow and develop... which happens when they lose as much as when they win.

 

[AFLQLD]

I like both of the previous opinions even though they are almost opposites, because they both get to the heart of supporting a team. The weekly wins matter and the long term matters. I want more than anything, a team that every week gets out there and tries to the very end, win or lose. And I want to see development and progress that leads to the ultimate success.

I want to be there when a young player gets drafted, see him make his debut, watch him develop, become a regular, become a leader and, maybe, win a grand final for us one day. The night I saw Karnesis make his debut and kick a goal with his first touch I said that he would win us a grand final one day. Who knows, perhaps he will!

I like the fact that I supported the team through the lowest points and saw them rise (as they will), have great victories, come-from-behind miracle wins, hard fought nail-biters and even the occasional crushing narrow loss. All I ask is 100% effort every time I watch them and I am happy.

 

[PattyKwasagun]

I like the fact that I supported the team through the lowest points and saw them rise (as they will), have great victories, come-from-behind miracle wins, hard fought nail-biters and even the occasional crushing narrow loss. All I ask is 100% effort every time I watch them and I am happy.

Great point. There's certainly a sentimental aspect of supporting a team through a lean patch. The days where so few show up and the stadium feels empty, or when your team gets such little coverage and is written off as irrelevant. When you start to feel a connection with the group stronger than you normally do with players because week after week you're there sitting through the thumpings with them. You're staying until the siren, supporting them, until the very end - regardless of score.

If things go as we all hope they will, players like Rockliff, Redden, Rich, Zorko and Leuy will be household names in three or four years - hopefully with a few others from the club too. They'll be asked to appear on the talk shows, their stories will be printed in newspapers nation-wide, and they'll essentially make the step up to celebrities, in much the same way as Voss, Akermanis, Lappin & co did - of course, perhaps not to the same extent. But we'll always remember the first few years of watching them. Of seeing them narrowly lose to West Coast in the rain with only 13, 000 others in Luke Power's last game. Of seeing them be completely obliterated by Sydney after boosting our confidence with a win over Adelaide. And of seeing their determination to overcome the media's judgement that they were a sub-par list, and were merely the leftovers from a trade that ruined our club.

Now, if we were to field Longer, Docherty, Bartlett, Yeo, Wearden, Lisle, Beams, Crisp, Green, O'Brien, Polec and Karnezis this week, then it would be a case of clearly writing the game off to an extent. But if we were to field all of Buchanan, Patfull, Raines, Black, Brown, Maguire, Drummond, Adcock, Hawksley, Sheldon and Stiller this week - all players who most would assume don't have much to do with our future side in 5 or so years time - that would be putting too much emphasis in one single result, rather than the overall result. Obviously I doubt those players would even be in the form to be selected anyway, but in experience terms alone, they'd be who we'd play instead of any from the first list.

Like everything, it's a balance. It's a matter of weighing up who will play a part in our future and what they need in terms of senior experience in order to be able to do so, with making sure we remain a competitive side and one that aims to win every weekend and truly believes it can.

We are a club on the up, and balancing the list to achieve short and long term goals is never an easy thing, but both must always be kept in mind. We've gone through very hard periods where players who are now the nucleus of our team were blooded and it probably did cost us short term results. We've also gone through stages where almost all experienced players were selected in favour of many more than two or three up and comers, and that undoubtedly did cost us long term. It's just about balancing it. We can't field a GWS-like team of youngsters on Sunday and get thrashed by 100. That'll help no one. But we can't play only guys with 40 games+. While we'd be probably more competitive than in the first scenario, it would achieve very little.

Of course we'll do everything we can to win on the weekend. But I expect Beams, Yeo, Lisle, and Docherty to play, as well as Black, Brown, Patfull, Raines, Maguire, Drummond & Adcock. And that team will have every belief that they can come away winners. Are they capable of doing so? Who knows. But it is the best way to balance out both our short and long term goals going forward.

 

[tancas]

After watching Drummond over the last few weeks I feel he is a bit out of touch, his kicks haven't been as damaging and he hasn't found the space to move. I can't help but feel he needs a week off, and what better week than the trip to Perth.This would open the door for his future replacement, getting the chance to see Doc play would lessen the blow of resting Drummond.
I am in no way saying Drummond is finished.......just that I think he needs a rest.

 

[tancas]

Also I believe if you are showing the best form in the 2s them you are the one the deserves the call up. This set's a good example amongest the playing group, you are called up because you have earned it not because you are young or have potential.

 

[chopperduck]

Has generally been the way we have run things, players playing good footy usually end up getting a call up. This year we've had some depth an light on injuries which has ment less spots for players, despite good form. But end of the year means many tired players and rotations are likely to happen. We can afford to play a few, reward good form and freshen up some legs now we are out of finals. That's not to say we stop trying to win, but it's good if we have a healthy list going into the offseason.

 

[Jorgo]

I think wabaa was mainly objecting to the concept of playing kids for the sake of playing kids and not trying to pick the best side. We've shown this year that we can pick the "best side" and still manage to include plenty of kids which I think is great. There are enough of our kids playing well in the 2s to justify their spot and be in the "best 22" scenario. I think wabaa, and I agree, objects to just stacking the side with kids for the sake of it. If they've been pushing hard & earnt their spot there is room for them in the "best 22" from time to time. "Best 22" does not equate to "no kids".

 

[Nick Lions]

Form is an issue with 'best 22' players as well. If a players form has declined to point where it hurts the side to field him, a younger player should be given an opportunity. Especially if their form in the lower grade has warranted it. Would much rather see Brisbane win a grand final in a few years, rather than sacrifice a development opportunity, so that we can snag a win against West Coast. The younger blokes with confidence may bring the best out in their team mates.

 

[Tassie4ever]

After watching Drummond over the last few weeks I feel he is a bit out of touch, his kicks haven't been as damaging and he hasn't found the space to move. I can't help but feel he needs a week off, and what better week than the trip to Perth.This would open the door for his future replacement, getting the chance to see Doc play would lessen the blow of resting Drummond.
I am in no way saying Drummond is finished.......just that I think he needs a rest.

After closely observing Drummond in a pre-season seconds game, I came away convinced that many of his physical problems are located firmly between his ears. At the slightest knock, or even sembalnce of a knock, he came to the bench and immediately got up a pronounced limp that was most definitely was not there when he was on the field.

Most interesting to me was the almost cursory way the medical staff dealt with him- been there, done that, it said to me.

That's definitely not to say that Drummond does not have a body, in particular legs, that are weathered old before their time.

As I said when I was fired up after last week's debacle, when I see Drummond and Adcock in action probably very unfairly a mental image of pipe and slippers with a cosy blanket for the legs springs to my tiny mind.

As you point out, has definitely run out of a bit of puff, after a few excellent games, especially his effort v the WC.

 

[POBT]

After closely observing Drummond in a pre-season seconds game, I came away convinced that many of his physical problems are located firmly between his ears. At the slightest knock, or even sembalnce of a knock, he came to the bench and immediately got up a pronounced limp that was most definitely was not there when he was on the field.

Most interesting to me was the almost cursory way the medical staff dealt with him- been there, done that, it said to me.

I know you are only relaying your observations Tassie but I can tell you that you got the wrong end of the stick.

 

[western royboy]

Like a lot of posters, I believe selection is relative to where you are on the premiership clock and realistically we are at about 4 o'clock.

This means list management and development of youngsters is crucial.

There will be a minimum of 4 delisted this year. I would suggest that Buchanan, Hawksley, Stiller and Sheldon are on shaky ground. That they have played minimally this year would suggest as much.

Who knows what the hierachy are thinking but it would be strange to turf someone else ahead of these guys based upon the opportunities they have had over time.

There will be opportunities to recruit from other clubs where the delistings will have plenty of upside (read - Collingwood).

No club can afford to put a heap of kids into a match at once (exclude GC & GWS) for they are your examples of what happens. I know Buckley will put no more than three in at once (he learnt the hard way in Rd 1) or else he believes performance drops off. Obviously the Pies are in a window so he has a different philosophy.

Our problem is that if we move the four aforementioned gents on at once then our list is very unevenly balanced in terms of age and experience and the cavernous drafting period of 2003 -2008 is exposed again.

It's a hard one, if Martin Pike or Blake Caracella came up now like they did when we were in the window, would we recruit them?

I don't think so.

So in essence we need to rotate the young blokes through as much as we can, but not in too higher numbers. And we need to retain some older experienced depth players for balance.

Interesting times ahead.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

I know you are only relaying your observations Tassie but I can tell you that you got the wrong end of the stick.

How we use Drummond may also be a factor. Even though he is 189cm, he really isn't built to do the job asked of him most weeks. He is a flanker, not a third or even second tall defender which is the job he is invariably given.