Strategy What's the right structure for list development?

[dogwatch]

Our post-flag list development is at the crossroads. There are lots of posts right now about list imbalances, drafting strategy and trading/FAs, all in the context of the WB undergoing a rebuild of sorts.

While the specific player prospects will get a lot of discussion throughout the season in the trades and list management threads I'm interested in how we approach this properly as a club.

List Development - or List Management if you prefer - involves at least the following:

• Identifying and agreeing on current needs
• Identifying and planning for future needs (eg what happens when Murphy, Moyd and Morris retire)
• Managing contracts of currently listed players
• Drafting (and all that it entails, such as talent identification, character checks, etc)
• Trading (ditto)
• Managing the TPPs
• Managing the draft points from year to year (including trading future picks and going into credit/deficit)
• Developing players currently on the list, especially the 18-20yos. This includes re-inventing them in different roles at times, to fill list needs or to get the best out of the player's particular strengths and deficiencies.

Over the last decade the key players in List Development have been the Head of Drafting (Dalrymple), the Head of List Management (J.McCartney) and the coach (Eade/B.McCartney/Beveridge). At times the Head of Football Operations (or whatever he's called) and even the Club President have been involved. For instance Gordon had to sign off the Tom Boyd deal.

My concern is that it's not at all clear how we make balanced decisions in the best interests of the club. In fact from the outside it has looked like each of them go about their job separately and we just arse some good outcomes but get quite a few poor outcomes as well.

There have been many anecdotes related here about how Dalrymple, JMcCartney and Beveridge (and before him BMcCartney) have been at odds over our list development approach. Not just which kid to draft or which type of player to draft, but also whether to burn draft picks in order to trade in players. It seems McCartney might have just gone out and made some unilateral trading decisions which have cut across the planning of both Dalrymple and Beveridge.

It seems blindingly obvious that we need someone to moderate the views of the three key players (drafting/list management/head coach) in order to get the best short and medium term outcomes. Who is that person, or who should it be? Chris Grant? And is he the right bloke for it? I reckon a club like Hawthorn has got this right over the last decade or so. I don't think we have.

With Dalrymple and McCartney gone in quick succession and replaced by Nick Austin and Sam Power we have a new regime, overseen by Chris Grant who at times appears to be more nice guy than hard-nosed strategist.

Over the next 6-12 months we need the right structure and the right people to get the best result out of

• the supposed super-draft of 2018
• the emergence of 4 exciting F/S and NextGen Academy prospects
• the impending loss of experience (Morris, Picken, maybe Dickson)
• securing the best players on our list who are most likely to be raided by other clubs (from Bont and Macrae, through McLean, Dunkley etc down to Naughton and Richards)
• the FA market (keeping our own FAs in Libba and Dahlhaus while potentially targetting others who become available)
• Keeping an eye on what's happening down the track (retirements, future F/S picks, etc)

And all the while consolidating for a tilt at another flag.

For a start can anyone say for certain what the command arrangements are between Grant, Beveridge, Power and Austin? Are there any other key players in this space?

It seems an opportune time to fix what looked to be a broken structure. Have we done that?

How do other clubs structure their List Development, especially those who are habitually good at it like Sydney and Hawthorn?

 

[Yojimbo]

Interesting thread DW, I will throw in a slightly curly one. Could some of these functions
be outsourced or a factor of consultancy applied without personal interest being a factor
in the eventual outcome. Even some of the things spoken about on bigfooty are well
ahead of what we see from the clubs in general.

 

[dogwatch]

Interesting thread DW, I will throw in a slightly curly one. Could some of these functions
be outsourced or a factor of consultancy applied without personal interest being a factor
in the eventual outcome. Even some of the things spoken about on bigfooty are well
ahead of what we see from the clubs in general.

I wouldn't think so. Draft picks and trade assets are like the crown jewels. You want someone who treats them accordingly and who is deeply invested in the need for a successful outcome.

If I can have a stab at answering my own question ...

We'd need someone in charge who, through consultation with coach, list manager and drafter, sets out a detailed 12-month plan (with perhaps a rolling three year planning horizon to account for contract renewals, father-sons, likely retirements, salary caps, getting into the ears of future-year targets such as Josh Kelly, etc).

This plan is reviewed and refined a couple of times during the season but certainly around July-August. The targets and available resources for the drafter and list manager are set and agreed, with any competing interests sorted out, so they pretty much know in advance what assets can be placed on the table, including players from the current list.

Naturally things can change quickly, especially during the trade period so if there's any surprises (e.g. if a player like Stringer is unexpectedly put on the market) or if there's any need to go outside the agreed parameters it can be quickly renegotiated internally. That's to make sure precious draft picks aren't squandered on dubious trade targets. If it's a massive deal with considerable exposure to risk (like those for Tom Boyd, Buddy Franklin) it will need buy-in from higher up, e.g. Bains or Gordon.

Maybe we already do follow a model something like that. I don't know. But who is this person in charge? Is it Sam Power, or is it Chris Grant? Are they suitably equipped to handle the role? And what is it exactly that Sam Power was hired to do? Is it identical to McCartney's old role or is it an oversight of both drafting (Austin) and list management?

I'm guessing here, so if anyone has any knowledge of how it is meant to work in 2018 (post-Dalrymple) I'd love to know.

 

[Next Waiting]

Just a very brief response DW. In all things there has to be an architect with a vision. The best person for that role IMO is the coach. They assesses what they have and what they need with reference to the style of football they want to play (that which will give them the best chance of winning now and sustainably into the future). The character/personality of the coach will have some bearing on whether or not the club will wear some short term pain for the medium to longer term gain eg a list clean out like the Hawks of 2004/05.

The problem in professional sport is that the life of the coach is a tenuous one and visionaries are few and far between. Hawthorn have been successful because Clarkson has had a very clear idea of how wants to play and the components/players that are necessary to produce that style of play. That style of play is both effective and sustainable and the length of his tenure, in part by virtue of its success, has ensured continuity. A self perpetuating sort scenario. He's the exception rather than the rule though. Most coaches a)aren't as good as him and b) aren't afforded the same tenure (possibly because of a).

Difficult to have the same vision span a number of coaches and list management people.

Simple answer

1) The right people (coach (architect) then recruiters and list manager to buy and maintain the raw materials)
2) Continuity

in that order

We have the coach right (imo) and some continuity with him and a core of young players. Recruiting and list management ????

 

[dogwatch]

Just a very brief response DW. In all things there has to be an architect with a vision. The best person for that role IMO is the coach. They assesses what they have and what they need with reference to the style of football they want to play (that which will give them the best chance of winning now and sustainably into the future). The character/personality of the coach will have some bearing on whether or not the club will wear some short term pain for the medium to longer term gain eg a list clean out like the Hawks of 2004/05.

The problem in professional sport is that the life of the coach is a tenuous one and visionaries are few and far between. Hawthorn have been successful because Clarkson has had a very clear idea of how wants to play and the components/players that are necessary to produce that style of play. That style of play is both effective and sustainable and the length of his tenure, in part by virtue of its success, has ensured continuity. A self perpetuating sort scenario. He's the exception rather than the rule though. Most coaches a)aren't as good as him and b) aren't afforded the same tenure (possibly because of a).

Difficult to have the same vision span a number of coaches and list management people.

Simple answer

1) The right people (coach (architect) then recruiters and list manager to buy and maintain the raw materials)
2) Continuity

in that order

We have the coach right (imo) and some continuity with him and a core of young players. Recruiting and list management ????

Thanks NW. I agree you need an architectural approach and what you suggest is viable when you have a coach like Bev who has breadth of vision, high intellect, is not a narcissist and is not s**t scared of losing his job.

The risk is that someone a lot more concerned about his job security - perhaps one who's been given an ultimatum to "get into the finals next year or you're out" - might demand a lot of short term fixes (trades) to the detriment of longer term development. For instance they might swap future stars (top 10 draft picks and developing players already on the list) for some ready made B-graders who will make an immediate difference but might only have 3-4 years playing future.

It's great for the coach to put an architecture or vision forward but someone else needs to sign off and have right of veto.

I've also read on this board some people saying the coach should back right off and leave trades and drafting decisions to the people hired to do it. I don't think that's a good idea but would like to know why they think it. I think the coach needs to be closely involved in those decisions.

 

[Next Waiting]

Thanks NW. I agree you need an architectural approach and what you suggest is viable when you have a coach like Bev who has breadth of vision, high intellect, is not a narcissist and is not s**t scared of losing his job.

The risk is that someone a lot more concerned about his job security - perhaps one who's been given an ultimatum to "get into the finals next year or you're out" - might demand a lot of short term fixes (trades) to the detriment of longer term development. For instance they might swap future stars (top 10 draft picks and developing players already on the list) for some ready made B-graders who will make an immediate difference but might only have 3-4 years playing future.

It's great for the coach to put an architecture or vision forward but someone else needs to sign off and have right of veto.

I've also read on this board some people saying the coach should back right off and leave trades and drafting decisions to the people hired to do it. I don't think that's a good idea but would like to know why they think it. I think the coach needs to be closely involved in those decisions.

I'm not convinced about this part. The first and most important decision IMO is the hiring of the coach. All that leads to that decision, including the assessment of where the list is at and the vision of where it's going to go under the candidates stewardship has to be hammered out in the appointment and selection phase. The list management team are then put at the coach's disposal (give him/provide him with what he wants in consultation with him) and IMO he should also be allowed to hire and fire assistant coaches (a sensible coach is likely to see the value of at least some continuity amongst the existing assistant coaches unless we're talking an absolute basket case of an organisation).

I can't see how it works any other way (effectively). If you hire the coach you hire his vision and commit to it and resource it. If the coach fails to deliver under those circumstances your choice was wrong (perhaps a failure of due diligence and/or assessment on the selection panels part). Coach sacked board spilt.

I wonder about Buckley for example. Can we really determine, even after such an extended tenure, how good he is or isn't without fully knowing how much influence/control he's had over the recruiting and list management aspects of the club. If he had a vision, it may have been completely undermined by those departments. It's also possible he's just no good and the one at fault is Eddie for pushing his barrow in the first place. Hard to imagine such an admission even if that was the case.

As you suggest, the self preservation aspect (job and reputation) of not just the coaches, but also the administrators that appoint them is a factor and muddies the waters significantly.

Edit: to your point about short term fixes to shore up a position at the expense better of longer term more beneficial options eg. Smorgon to Eade scenario. Someone, perhaps more than one person isn't doing their job or right for the job their in. In such a scenario who or what is vetoed. The ill-informed president/board and his/their delusion or the coach who feels compelled to give it its only short sighted hope of succeeding whilst knowing it's to the likely longer term detriment. Bloody people. If only they weren't involved

 

[BRWB]

Great thread.

The coach may have a vision. But he cannot be in charge of list management, see the Peter Rhode and Mark Neeld experiences.

Whenever coaches and list staff are hired there must be agreement on vision. Simple.

Excellence and continuity is vital in all key list and coaching staff.

Teams like Sydney, Geelong and Hawthorn have been powerhouses for a reason. All have had significant excellence and continuity in their key staff.

Sydney of course recognized excellence and stole Dal. We couldnt keep it together enough to keep Dal. Not only that, we have unproven people in all of our significant off field positions. IMO it will be an absolute fluke if we can maintain any sort of success - you just can't roll the dice on unproven talent in these roles and expect success. For every Bev there are 30 Neelds. Remember that Dal was s**t in his first year. And JMac never learnt to spot talent and negotiate.

One change I want is for us to contract pro negotiatiors to act for us in trade week. We give them parameters, delegate authority and leave them to it. It is foolish to expect ex footy players and talent spotters to be gun negotiatiors.

 

[Next Waiting]

Great thread.

The coach may have a vision. But he cannot be in charge of list management, see the Peter Rhode and Mark Neeld experiences.

Whenever coaches and list staff are hired there must be agreement on vision. Simple.

Excellence and continuity is vital in all key staff.

Agree particularly with the last sentence. Choice of staff is crucial.

(Bolded)They were poor choices as coach in the first instance. Poor coaches and poor vision. Zero hope of success.

Here's a question. Should a list staff member be on the coaching selection panel? What point hiring a coach only to find that they're diametrically opposed to the philosophies of the the list manager. Is it important/necessary for a list manager/recruiter to have a philosophy on game style? Which came first, chicken or the egg

 

[BRWB]

Agree particularly with the last sentence. Choice of staff is crucial.

(Bolded)They were poor choices as coach in the first instance. Poor coaches and poor vision. Zero hope of success.

Here's a question. Should a list staff member be on the coaching selection panel? What point hiring a coach only to find that they're diametrically opposed to the philosophies of the the list manager. Is it important/necessary for a list manager/recruiter to have a philosophy on game style? Which came first, chicken or the egg

Answer: Yes. You dont hire a coach who runs against the incumbent list managers vision.

Likewise dont hire a list manager running against an incumbent coach's vision.

There must be alignment at the outset and ongoing, otherwise you get a dogs brekkie.

 

[Next Waiting]

Answer: Yes. You dont hire a coach who runs against the incumbent list managers vision.

Likewise dont hire a list manager running against an incumbent coach's vision.

There must be alignment at the outset and ongoing, otherwise you get a dogs brekkie.

It seems that the actual position of the club hiring a coach for example has a massive bearing.

Lets say Clarkson retires tomorrow for health reasons. Do you entertain a replacement/candidate who disagrees with Clarksons philosophy given that the team and the list and the list staff likely reflects that philosophy. Probably not. Likely you hire someone more or less in full agreement with the current philosophy because it's fantastically successful.

Other end of the spectrum. The club hiring is in disarray has been consistently going backwards. The recruitment and list managers retain their positions, the coach does not. The candidates for the position all express concerns over the list and how it reflects a flawed philosophy. All suggest change in that area. If you select a coach to align with what is widely held to be flawed recruiting and a flawed philosophy you're doomed to repeat the failures. Continuity of a sort but not the desired sort. Seems rare that circumstances would align where both coach and list staff start on the same page. At some stage, one must prevail over the other to set the direction whether through incumbency or change.

 

[WallyStringhaus]

Super thread DW. I did a little research this arvo into each clubs recruiting departments, paying particular attention to the teams who have obtained sustained sucess across the past decade or so in Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney. What stood out for me was that all three seem to be structured fairly similarly. All had relatively small recruitment departments (too many cooks?) and all three had a clear figurehead with the role of list manager AND recruitment manager assigned to the one employee. Stephen Wells at Geelong, Kinnear Beatson at Sydney and Mark McKenzie at Hawthorn (previously Graham Wright).

This looks to be the model we have based ourselves on with Sam Power assuming both roles. Whilst structually this makes more sense i have reservations about Power due to a) a lack of experience and b) he has come from a club that has pretty much buggered up everything its touched in the last 20 years. Perhaps BRWB's point is pertinent here, given Powers background in law, was the club looking for a gun negotiator and could this be Sam's forte?

I'm note sure where Grant sits in all this but found interest that Sydneys current structure allows Tom Harley to oversee contract negotiations, perhaps Grant plays a similar role for us? In committing the dual role to Power i hope that Grant and Gordon avoid micro-managing the situation and give him every opportunity to flourish in what is an extremely important position within the Club.

I think the club has been brave in identifying that all was not right within the recruitment department and acted pretty swiftly to change things structually. It would have been quite easy to bathe in the glory of our Premiership and lock Dalrymple and McCartney in to multi year deals with significant pay rises for both. The fact that we didn't, for me, is another sign that the Leadership at our club is absolutely committed to sustained success.

Great work DW!

 

[dogwatch]

...
This looks to be the model we have based ourselves on with Sam Power assuming both roles.

I wonder how much say Beveridge had on the restructure, given he had come from Hawthorn. Perhaps it was even at his instigation?

...
Perhaps BRWB's point is pertinent here, given Powers background in law, was the club looking for a gun negotiator and could this be Sam's forte?

I'm note sure where Grant sits in all this but found interest that Sydneys current structure allows Tom Harley to oversee contract negotiations, perhaps Grant plays a similar role for us? In committing the dual role to Power i hope that Grant and Gordon avoid micro-managing the situation and give him every opportunity to flourish in what is an extremely important position within the Club.

...

So as I understand it the club has recruited Nick Austin to be the draft guru but he answers to Sam Power. This makes sense as talent scouting is easily a full time job in the modern era and no doubt that involves co-ordinating intelligence and tips from a wide network of regional scouts. What I haven't heard about is whether there is a similar role to the one McCartney had in List Management that reports to Power. I'm assuming not at this stage and that Sam Power has to carry out that role.

If those assumptions are correct then BRWB 's concerns (and yours too) about Power's inexperience may be somewhat mitigated. The trades/FAs/contract management side of things is much more clearly delineated than trying to find junior talent right across the country. The real skills in McCartney's role should have been (a) negotiating with other clubs and managers (b) forward management of the TPPs and individual player contracts so that we don't ever lose a critical player in the way we lost Ward and (c) identifying trade/FA prospects who could be lured to the club for the right price.

The more difficult and more telling skill is drafting. It's why we were so full of praise for Dalrymple and why it was sad to lose him. Now if Nick Austin is the designated new drafting guru it seems to me that we should be scrutinising him and his capabilities a lot more than Power. So far I've seen almost nothing written about him and I know very little about his background. What I'm saying is our concerns about Power are legit but they have been concentrated on the wrong person. It's Austin we need to be a genius more than Power.

...
I think the club has been brave in identifying that all was not right within the recruitment department and acted pretty swiftly to change things structually. It would have been quite easy to bathe in the glory of our Premiership and lock Dalrymple and McCartney in to multi year deals with significant pay rises for both. The fact that we didn't, for me, is another sign that the Leadership at our club is absolutely committed to sustained success.

Clearly the club didn't see Dalrymple capable of handling the role that was packaged up for Power, or if we did, perhaps we didn't want to distract him from his greatest strength - talent scouting and drafting. We hoped that he would stay (in the role that Austin now seems to have taken) but must always have expected that he would leave.


Nice research, Wally. Many thanks for that.

 

[bobby2]

Honestly, I think the best approach was to retain dalrymple and try to keep giving him plenty of draft picks, while having a list manager whose main focus is player contracts, while occasionally making sensible trades without burning dalrymple's resources.

We had problems here in dalrymple and jmac clashing. I think the best decision would've been to cut jmac and bring in a list manager who was happy to give dalrymple most of the recruiting reins.

At the end of the day, if dalrymple landed the likes of Richards, Naughton, English and Young most years, that was worth way more than having a department with a slightly nicer looking structure.

I'm not going to judge the new guys yet obviously, but the chances of anyone new outdoing dalrymple are low, just because he was so far ahead of most of the competition.

 

[Yojimbo]

I wouldn't think so.

You are probably right DW, I was more referring to the lead up period to an actual call being made, I always find it very interesting
hearing what for instance other teams think of a particular player. West Coast for example had a small centre half forward in the
early nineties Karl Langdon players from another team called him superman, I will not mention the team. I think a neutral outside
perspective is very interesting, but only up to a point. Having the opposition analyst reports for all the Bulldogs games would be
a very interesting read to say the least.

 

[BRWB]

It seems that the actual position of the club hiring a coach for example has a massive bearing.

Lets say Clarkson retires tomorrow for health reasons. Do you entertain a replacement/candidate who disagrees with Clarksons philosophy given that the team and the list and the list staff likely reflects that philosophy. Probably not. Likely you hire someone more or less in full agreement with the current philosophy because it's fantastically successful.

Other end of the spectrum. The club hiring is in disarray has been consistently going backwards. The recruitment and list managers retain their positions, the coach does not. The candidates for the position all express concerns over the list and how it reflects a flawed philosophy. All suggest change in that area. If you select a coach to align with what is widely held to be flawed recruiting and a flawed philosophy you're doomed to repeat the failures. Continuity of a sort but not the desired sort. Seems rare that circumstances would align where both coach and list staff start on the same page. At some stage, one must prevail over the other to set the direction whether through incumbency or change.

Good point, for clarity my earlier point presupposed an existing successful culture and should have mentioned this.

 

[ScragCity]

Here's my 4-step plan for list development:

1. Delist/trade Lin Jong
2. Get a Rioli
3. ?????????
4. Profit

Having Jong is good for ethnic diversity but he's the wrong ethnicity. He's the furthest thing from a natural footballer I've ever seen. He's just a big athletic body who can catch the ball but not much else. What we need is a bit of black fella magic. Indigenous Australians have Aussie rules running through their blood. White Australians might have invented it but the Indigenous get some kind of special powers from playing on their native land. They just have a connection to the land that you can't quantify and it gives them some hella xfactor.

 

[WallyStringhaus]

Here's my 4-step plan for list development:

1. Delist/trade Lin Jong
2. Get a Rioli
3. ?????????
4. Profit

Having Jong is good for ethnic diversity but he's the wrong ethnicity. He's the furthest thing from a natural footballer I've ever seen. He's just a big athletic body who can catch the ball but not much else. What we need is a bit of black fella magic. Indigenous Australians have Aussie rules running through their blood. White Australians might have invented it but the Indigenous get some kind of special powers from playing on their native land. They just have a connection to the land that you can't quantify and it gives them some hella xfactor.

They reckon there is a fine line between a genius and an idiot. I think you've snorted that line! You're always good for a laugh Scrag...never change!

 

[WallyStringhaus]

I wonder how much say Beveridge had on the restructure, given he had come from Hawthorn. Perhaps it was even at his instigation?

So as I understand it the club has recruited Nick Austin to be the draft guru but he answers to Sam Power. This makes sense as talent scouting is easily a full time job in the modern era and no doubt that involves co-ordinating intelligence and tips from a wide network of regional scouts. What I haven't heard about is whether there is a similar role to the one McCartney had in List Management that reports to Power. I'm assuming not at this stage and that Sam Power has to carry out that role.

If those assumptions are correct then BRWB 's concerns (and yours too) about Power's inexperience may be somewhat mitigated. The trades/FAs/contract management side of things is much more clearly delineated than trying to find junior talent right across the country. The real skills in McCartney's role should have been (a) negotiating with other clubs and managers (b) forward management of the TPPs and individual player contracts so that we don't ever lose a critical player in the way we lost Ward and (c) identifying trade/FA prospects who could be lured to the club for the right price.

The more difficult and more telling skill is drafting. It's why we were so full of praise for Dalrymple and why it was sad to lose him. Now if Nick Austin is the designated new drafting guru it seems to me that we should be scrutinising him and his capabilities a lot more than Power. So far I've seen almost nothing written about him and I know very little about his background. What I'm saying is our concerns about Power are legit but they have been concentrated on the wrong person. It's Austin we need to be a genius more than Power.


Clearly the club didn't see Dalrymple capable of handling the role that was packaged up for Power, or if we did, perhaps we didn't want to distract him from his greatest strength - talent scouting and drafting. We hoped that he would stay (in the role that Austin now seems to have taken) but must always have expected that he would leave.


Nice research, Wally. Many thanks for that.

My understanding is that Power is the man that we want to be a genius. Don't think of it as Power replacing McCartney and Austin replacing Dal. Power is replacing the both of them to consolidate the role and Austin will be his right hand man. Power will have the final say on all of our recruitment as well as scouting himself which is exactly how the Cats, Swans and Hawks do it.

Austin worked for the Dogs in 2006 for a few years in opposition analysis before moving to Port and then Richmond where he became a pro scout and list/recruitment officer. This is a big step up for him.

Interesting with Dal that he has essentially taken the same role with Sydney as he would have with us. He reports to Beatson who makes the final call. I think you're right and we didn't think he was capable of taking on the head role.

I also wonder where Bev fits in all of this. I seem to remember that Suckling, Cloke and Trengove all mentioning that conversations with Luke were what convinced them to join us. Will this continue to occur under the new structure?

 

[maddog37]

How does the system work with Bill Belichik and the Pats?

 

[100action]

I thought our list was super imbalanced in 2016. I don't know what to think any more. It is all conjecture and the slightest change to a game plan throws out standard views of team structure.

 

[dogwatch]

I thought our list was super imbalanced in 2016. I don't know what to think any more. It is all conjecture and the slightest change to a game plan throws out standard views of team structure.

You might have been right. It seems the 2016 playing style was developed in response to the list balance (or imbalance) that Bev found himself with.

It can work both ways.