Young player development

[Crow-mo]

Port would be disadvantaged too then?

they're player development isn't much either. the SANFL hasn't made a player out of Lobbe yet - a guy Rendell apparently loves.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Absolutely not. it was purely a suggestion for others to comment on. Thats why I said "it makes you wonder". I'm all ears actually. Id love for someone to tell me definitively what the problem is. Do Crows listed players regularly star in the SANFL? I think the answer is no. Do they play out of position for their SANFL club? Are the SANFL coaches on the same page as the AFC coaches in terms of player development? Im pretty sure the answers are no. Is this good for developing AFC draftees? You tell me Carl.

If the answers are all 'no' and it is having a negative effect on Crows youngsters, then Port should be seeing the same problems with their young players.

The premise of the thread is why do Crows youngsters appear more out of their depth or slower in their development than those at other clubs.

Firstly before we go any further, do you agree with that premise?

Secondly, are Port youngsters included in 'those at other clubs' who appear to come on quicker than ours?

If your answer to these two questions is Yes and Yes then we can rule out the SANFL as being the cause.

 

[crowsup]

If the answers are all 'no' and it is having a negative effect on Crows youngsters, then Port should be seeing the same problems with their young players.

The premise of the thread is why do Crows youngsters appear more out of their depth or slower in their development than those at other clubs.

Firstly before we go any further, do you agree with that premise?

Secondly, are Port youngsters included in 'those at other clubs' who appear to come on quicker than ours?

If your answer to these two questions is Yes and Yes then we can rule out the SANFL as being the cause.

Good questions

The implication by some of the posters is that the AFC is not doing a good job in developing our players or that it does not pick the right kind of players.
I really do not know where this assumption comes from. I assume this idea springs from comparing the other teams and the development of their players.
How many seasons did Dangerfield spend in the SANFL? How many seasons did Otten spend in the SANFL? I wonder why they were given gold passes, or why they did not give Sellar as many games in the seniors, as the other two? Just so he would develop quicker.
As far as other teams are concerned. Why are some posters saying that the power plays their juniors more often so they can be developed quicker?
IIRC, in 2008, Choco did not play too many youngsters until he gave the season away (very early) and decided to play more youngsters to see who would stand up.
Can someone tell me who or how many of those youngster are still in the team? As far as Hitchcock goes, he may very well become a star and good luck to him, but does his pick make port selectors smarter than ours? Maybe. The one think I remember is that a Donald Dickey was a star also,for one season.
I believe that all teams will only debut first or second year draft picks only if they are outstanding, or if the rest of team stinks so much that they have no other options, ala Fremantle last year.
Having said all this, I understand that we do make mistakes. I understand that we should demand that our club should do better than any other club. But, for our own well being, we should also be more realistic.

 

[dogs105]

If people are dead set on drafting players that are AFl-ready, rather than talented people who may sit on the list for up to 3-4 years before they show anything, I take it they would be happy with a team full of James Byrnes, James Gallaghers and Brodie Atkinsons, and not have, say, Ben Rutten, Peter Vardy, Nathan Bock, David Pittman or Kane Johnson.

Hopefully you don't 'need' draftees to play straight away, and can choose career potential (Vardy), over instant depth player (Matt Clape).

Do you want the 30-35th-ish players on the list to be there for 'depth only', or to be developing kids, who one day might crack the top 10, or even top 3-4 players in the team?

Do you want Brett Ebert over Patrick Dangerfield still?

 

[WAG]

Thats where I was heading on this CM. It makes you wonder if Adelaide players are disadvantaged by the SANFL system rather than playing in an AFL reserves team.

I've posted a similar question to the one below in a similar thread (which may be merged), however I've often wondered what sort of communication exists between the Crows coaching staff and the SANFL clubs regarding the players that play for them. The example Crowman32 gave was of Phil Davis playing out of the back pocket, and while he does it well, is it having a negative impact on his development.

My question is how much say would Criagy et al have as to where Davis or other players line up and the type of roles they are given within the SANFL club? Do the Crows have any say, or does it ultimately come down to the coaches of the SANFL clubs?

 

[WALL-e]

Throws up the Crows & Power affiliated SANFL teams again WAG.

Would hurt the SANFL, but would be very good for Adelaide. The VFL don't have a massive problem with it, but their teams are as entreched with history as the SANFL teams.

I for example would then go for Sturt and Adelaide reserves.

 

[cmndstab]

I have to say, I've always wondered this. I don't even mind our players coming in and struggling initially, that can happen. What frustrates me is that we regularly hold our players back longer than any other team in the comp, and then they still struggle when they get to AFL level.


The SANFL is the second-strongest comp in the land, but the AFL has become unrecognisable in the last few years with increased rotations and zoning strategies completely foreign to the SANFL. It's no surprise that players come from the SANFL to AFL and look completely lost, but again, if this is going to happen anyway, what's the point in keeping them in the SANFL for so long?


I'm a big advocate for not playing players until they've earned a spot. Gifting kids games simply because they are young sets a terrible precedent, and I'm convinced many of the clubs who have been weak in the last half a decade or so and have played their young kids simply because they are a "developing side" are going to find in a few years that it's done the kids more harm than good. However, I'm not convinced that our young kids should be held to the same standards as the other senior players. There needs to be some level of weighting that takes into consideration their potential for improvement over a 26 year old.


In the grand scheme of things, it probably doesn't matter that much. Players that come in and struggle initially in our team seem to get their game together within another year or so, for the most part. The likes of Otten and Dangerfield, who both had a shocker match in their first season (debut match for Otten, second match for Danger) and then came out the following year and looked like they belonged. Cook and Petrenko already look much improved on their few offerings last season. The examples go on and on.

It's just frustrating

 

[KingJames23]

The likes of Otten and Dangerfield, who both had a shocker match in their first season (debut match for Otten, second match for Danger) and then came out the following year and looked like they belonged. Cook and Petrenko already look much improved on their few offerings last season.

I think what really worked in Danger and Otten's favour last year is that we were a winning team. Particularly during that mid season run that we had, Otten was exceptional.

While guys like Young and Cook look to be struggling a little early on, we cant expect them to play well when guys like Edwards, Tippet and Doughty are also struggling. Once things pick up for us and we start winning and our senior guys reach peak fitness, I am confident our kids will play so much better with quality players around them. In partiular, I think a player like Cook will do so much better when players like Vince and Thompson are dominating the contested ball and Cook is there to recieve and run. I only hope he doesnt become a Pearce type player that only dominates when the team is winning.

 

[relapse]

I have to say, I've always wondered this. I don't even mind our players coming in and struggling initially, that can happen. What frustrates me is that we regularly hold our players back longer than any other team in the comp, and then they still struggle when they get to AFL level.


The SANFL is the second-strongest comp in the land, but the AFL has become unrecognisable in the last few years with increased rotations and zoning strategies completely foreign to the SANFL. It's no surprise that players come from the SANFL to AFL and look completely lost, but again, if this is going to happen anyway, what's the point in keeping them in the SANFL for so long?


I'm a big advocate for not playing players until they've earned a spot. Gifting kids games simply because they are young sets a terrible precedent, and I'm convinced many of the clubs who have been weak in the last half a decade or so and have played their young kids simply because they are a "developing side" are going to find in a few years that it's done the kids more harm than good. However, I'm not convinced that our young kids should be held to the same standards as the other senior players. There needs to be some level of weighting that takes into consideration their potential for improvement over a 26 year old.


In the grand scheme of things, it probably doesn't matter that much. Players that come in and struggle initially in our team seem to get their game together within another year or so, for the most part. The likes of Otten and Dangerfield, who both had a shocker match in their first season (debut match for Otten, second match for Danger) and then came out the following year and looked like they belonged. Cook and Petrenko already look much improved on their few offerings last season. The examples go on and on.

It's just frustrating

Great post, I think list management is one of those ever evolving aspects of our game and over the last decade with reducing list numbers, the introduction of zones and player rotations has meant that list management has undergone more significant changes in the last decade than ever before.

To me since the end of 2006 Craig seems to be about 12 months behind other coaches when it comes to list management/development and that often he appears to be more reactive than proactive in respect of list management. That is only my observation, but your point which is a very valid one, is that we do seem to hold back players longer than other clubs and to me it gives the impression that Craig appears to be behind the curve and seems to prefer making decisions later rather than sooner.

I agree with your point that irrespective of how long they are kept in the SANFL players still require a season or two of AFL game time to enable them to continue to develop as a player so there is a valid question of whether we are actually helping or hindering their development by leaving them in the SANFL for as long as we do and whether we should actually be introducing them (such as in the case of players like Walker who have shown that they are ready) into the side earlier than we currently have been.

The other very valid point you made is that there is no evidence to support that playing players earlier is actually the right development strategy either . It has basically now become vogue since Hawthorn’s rise that going the youth option is viewed by coaches as being the current magic elixir to achieve success. It remains to be seen whether sides like Melbourne and Carlton who have followed a similar path will achieve the same success as Hawthorn have or whether sides like us who have taken a more conservative stance with list management will be the right path.

 

[Wood_Duck]

If the answers are all 'no' and it is having a negative effect on Crows youngsters, then Port should be seeing the same problems with their young players.

The premise of the thread is why do Crows youngsters appear more out of their depth or slower in their development than those at other clubs.

Firstly before we go any further, do you agree with that premise?

Secondly, are Port youngsters included in 'those at other clubs' who appear to come on quicker than ours?

If your answer to these two questions is Yes and Yes then we can rule out the SANFL as being the cause.

Sorry its taken me a while to reply, actually had to do some work for once.

I do think that the interstate teams (ie non victorian) are disadvantaged by playing in SANFl rather than an AFL reserves team. The fact is that only 22 of our list actually play together every week. The rest of the list go back to the SANFL and play against each other under different coaches in teams of greatly varying abilities. Id have thought as a draftee coming to the club you would much rather play with the blokes you train with, have some consistency in coaches, play in your relevant position and generally feel part of one club.

As for Port. I really dont take much notice of them to be honest. My perception is that they do tend to back their younger players a bit more. Hence guys lile Banner, Moore and Hitchcock are playing this year. Whether this has always been the case I wouldnt actually know. If this has been the case it probably explains Port's lack of consistency and unpredictability since they lucked into a premiership a few years ago.

Im sure its not the only factor, NC's conservatism is probably a fair bit of the isssue as well.

Its interesting that the main exception to this premise is Dangerfield. He played TAC cup rather than move to S.A and play SANFL. Not sure how many SANFL games he actually played but its not many. Whether that had any impact on his afl readiness, I shall leave to others to debate.

Hypothetically, if for some reason Jack Trengove (or Dustan Martinn take your pick) went to us in the 2009 draft. Would he currently be in our starting 22?

 

[cmndstab]

In the case of Trengove, I imagine he would, assuming he performed with us in the NAB Cup to the same level he performed with Melbourne. He was coming in with senior SANFL experience and a bucketload of talent. He would have been given a go in the NAB Cup and if his performances warranted it he'd be straight in the side.


Martin, I'm not so sure about. He came out of a junior system and might have been expected to prove himself at senior level first. I guess it would depend what kind of preseason training form he was showing.


Generally we don't even give players a spot in the NAB Cup side unless they have some kind of proven league form from the previous year.