Youth v Experience

[Southerntakeover]

What were you hoping for? A mathematical formula?

Ok, if Games Played x B&F Votes x Draft pick taken at / shoe size is > 119 then the player is a match winner

I think, if you're making a term definitive in the forming of a policy, it would be helpful if you actually knew what it meant first.

We lost that game!

Though no fault of his. Without him we would have been humiliated

Of course if anyone plays well you are a better chance of winning.

I agree. It was your point of distinction.

You're acting as though this ranking of players is a completely foreign concept for clubs. Pay scale? Imagine an opposition match committee sitting around the table going through their plans, tactics and worries for a game against Adelaide. Who are they most concerned about nullifying, about tagging, about bypassing?

Of course.

I dont think its as static as you portray however.

Players dont stay at one level, predetermined, and should be treated as such. They improve, go up and down in form etc. Putting them into rigid categories doesnt sound like a good idea.

Example- in the past Doughty has been a reliable, though not necessarily influential player. Last year he was both reliable and influential. Top 5 in the best and fairest. This is the type of player who would be written off under your system.

 

[Crow-mo]

I think the big problem with the hawthorn effect (not the observational management science but the 2008 flag) is that ignores just how much luck was involved. Huge amounts. without buddy rougie and lewis they don't win or get close. And that relied om them being in draft position in 2004 AND their being champion forward talent available AND that no one else identified it before them. If meesen and tom williams were their guys they are stuffed.

Luck is everything, but equally you have to make thr most of it once you get it. Getting Walker was luck, how you handle him isn't.

The entire neil craig era will probably be defined by Tippett walker and danger. Without them right now, we wouldn't even have hope.

And how much luck was involved getting Tippett the most important of them all? in what was called the greated crop of KPP talent in draft history, what are the odds that the likely best one lasted til the end of the second round? Being overlooked in favour of other talls at least a dozen or more times, including once by us.

we've been dumb, and we've had bad luck, but luck is everything. what you then do is the issue, and playing mid range youngsters for the sake of it isn't ideal and holding back gilt edged talent shouldn't happen either.

what you mustn't do is treat everyone the same.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I think, if you're making a term definitive in the forming of a policy, it would be helpful if you actually knew what it meant first.

I agree. It was your point of distinction.

Your being deliberately obtuse here.

Clubs know. The distinction has already been made. Do you think all players get paid the same because they might play well one day?

Which players play well the most often? Which players are the most valuable? Who are the catalysts for your best football? Clubs know who their key players are and they know who are the support acts. However I try to quantify them doesn't matter.

Players dont stay at one level, predetermined, and should be treated as such. They improve, go up and down in form etc. Putting them into rigid categories doesnt sound like a good idea.

Why are you getting so hung up on the subjective elements that can never been agreed upon when this is clearly a conceptual debate?

Namely, do we pick a team to maximise performance on Sunday, or do we look at the league leaders (Geelong, St Kilda, Bulldogs) and plan how we can bridge the gap between us and them?

Who is in what category or even what the categories are... this stuff doesn't matter. What this debate is about is whether there needs to be a change of mindset.

Example- in the past Doughty has been a reliable, though not necessarily influential player. Last year he was both reliable and influential. Top 5 in the best and fairest. This is the type of player who would be written off under your system.

I don't rate B&Fs. Because the guys who put Massie on Franklin are the ones who decide the votes.

I'm tipping that when Sydney goes through the list of Crows players to worry about, Doughty isn't at No. 5. And I'm tipping Doughty isn't our fifth highest paid player either.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Your being deliberately obtuse here.

No im not. Keep your cool.

Clubs know. The distinction has already been made. Do you think all players get paid the same because they might play well one day?

Which players play well the most often? Which players are the most valuable? Who are the catalysts for your best football? Clubs know who their key players are and they know who are the support acts. However I try to quantify them doesn't matter.

No, however i do think a players value changes from contract to contract.

The reason ive been harping on this is because as a theory of selection, if all you can offer is subjectivism, you cannot actually be critical of the clubs selection policy at all.

All it becomes is a dispute over who these match winners are etc.

Why are you getting so hung up on the subjective elements that can never been agreed upon when this is clearly a conceptual debate?

Namely, do we pick a team to maximise performance on Sunday, or do we look at the league leaders (Geelong, St Kilda, Bulldogs) and plan how we can bridge the gap between us and them?

Who is in what category or even what the categories are... this stuff doesn't matter. What this debate is about is whether there needs to be a change of mindset.

Look, i agree in a sense.

However, in my mind its important to determine whether its actually a philosophical change, or simply a difference of opinion on where certain players lie in the heirarchy.

I don't rate B&Fs. Because the guys who put Massie on Franklin are the ones who decide the votes.

I tend to think coaches are the best placed to evaluate performance, but fair enough.

I'm tipping that when Sydney goes through the list of Crows players to worry about, Doughty isn't at No. 5. And I'm tipping Doughty isn't our fifth highest paid player either.

You may be suprised about who sydney rates and doesnt. Given the style of game sydney plays, i wouldnt be suprised if they had a great respect for Doughty. Of course, neither of us knows for certain.

How much hes being paid at current is a clumsy measure. A players market value can change between contract negotiations.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The reason ive been harping on this is because as a theory of selection, if all you can offer is subjectivism, you cannot actually be critical of the clubs selection policy at all.

All it becomes is a dispute over who these match winners are etc.

However, in my mind its important to determine whether its actually a philosophical change, or simply a difference of opinion on where certain players lie in the heirarchy.

With selection, subjectivity is all there ever is, all there ever has been and all there is ever going to be.

Here of course we are talking about a philosophical change. Not simply rating players differently.

NC has stated countless times that the club will always play its best 22 and will always strive to play finals footy rather than accept a lower placing to develop the list. We pick teams for today rather than tomorrow.

So my issue is with this. Whether Doughty or van Berlo or whoever is regarded as a match winner doesn't actually matter and is the least interesting and relevant part of this debate.

 

[Sekaj]

McKernan and Davis were both exposed as being horribly out of their depth at AFL level, and still need another season of SANFL, lest they be any more torn up by their opponents than they already have been.

I disagree regarding Davis. I saw him against Carlton in the NAB Challenge and he looked quite comfortable and poised out there. The AFL regular season is obviously a step up from a NAB Challenge match but I'm confident if you leave him in the side for a few games it wouldn't take long for him to catch up.

 

[WALL-e]

We've felt the sting of go hard now, when we traded for Carey, drafted Gill etc to go old and hard.

We then felt a long cold on the outer and have a hole in our list in the prime age bracket.

You need a balance. Experience to guide youth.

But certainly is there's players of the same skill, the younger player should be cater to due to more upside.

For example Shirley, yeah he knew the game plan better and was more physically ready for AFL, but there's a lot of younger players who have more skill. Now that's probably nto fair on Rob as he made his name not through skill, but work.

I have no problems with the decisions the club has made thus far.

 

[Rave Slave]

It's an interesting subject, certainly brings about healthy debate.

In fairness to Carl I actually see some merit in what he's saying but only on a smaller scale. Just to use a quick example:

Hentschel vs Davis.

Right now, Davis isn't ready to be playing AFL football. That being said Trent's output is minimal and IMO he's shown that he'll be off the list in the next year or two. On the flipside of that, the musings coming out of the club are that Davis could be an exceptional AFL player in the future and has been earmarked as a forward (who can be swung into defence ALA Trent). My question then is - do we lose that much by putting a kid in who's currently not AFL ready but has been touted as a future star in place of a guy who's effectively had his career cut short by injury?

For mine we don't and it's a move I'd make. The argument then is, does that early gametime when a young kid isn't ready fast track their development? or does it stagnate it? I wouldn't think it'd be the rule but I'm sure there are examples of both.

With that being said I'm not big on gifting golden tickets all over the ground and I don't think that saying 'Will Young is set to be a gun in 4 years so lets get rid of Stevens now' is an appropriate attitude. What I do think is you can afford doing just that in one or two positions or areas where you're lacking.

I think if you gift too many players games then you find a lack of leadership on field and the development goes backwards. With that in mind, if you don't risk players at all then you find yourself in a position where you have an ageing list and face the prospects of a lack of on field leadership when senior players retire anyway. It's all about the balancing act.

I'll remove the splinters from my fence sitting now

 

[macca23]

Great thread STO, and as Macca19 said all boards suffer from posters who'd almost play kids in diapers because they think younger is better. Unfortunately playing youngsters before they are actually ready to play AFL even at an average level generally is detrimental to both player and club.

The majority of sides that win flags are chock full of experienced players with a smattering of youth, and by youth in general I'm talking about 2 to 3 seasons experience after being drafted before they're of real value. eg Geelong last year, Brisbane when it had its 3-peat.

I couldn't help but wonder when we were getting absolutely smashed by Freo's mid-field last week as to whether we got rid of Rob Shirley one year too soon. I have no doubt that Shirley would have camped tightly on Barlow and restricted him at least somewhat compared to the pathetically tissue thin efforts that were actually put up by those that did play.

IMO the truth is that it does depend on whether your window of opportunity is open or closed. If you're a Richmond or a Melbourne, you know that many of the experienced players that you have just arent up to it, so playing youngsters prematurely is going to do no more than increase the losing margins, but conversely you are building a base of experience into the youngsters.

If you're a Geelong, St Kilda or Bulldogs you want a tough experienced team because you're a real chance to win a flag.

If you're an Adelaide, Collingwood or a Brisbane it's not so open and shut. You're a half or quarter chance to win a flag but do you roll the dice and go heavy on experience or accept that you're a year or two away and keep putting more experience into more of the youngsters which will cost you minor round games but maybe set you up for 2 years down the road.

For me, it's not open or shut but depends entirely on where you are on the premiership clock.

Having said all of the above, apart from a flag, there's not much more exciting than watching the career of a Dangerfield, Otten, Tippett, Mackay and Walker develop game by game.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Macca23, you've based your reply around the premiership clock theory. One which NC doesn't subscribe to.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

I think our age balance at the moment is quite good, maybe just a little top heavy in the over 32's. However, unfortunately, we just don't have the cattle to win a premiership. To take that extra step as it stands at the moment we badly need a quality ruckman, a small forward, at least one more 1st tier midfielder and a few more players with a harder edge - a few players that tackle with to hurt.

Because of the above deficiencies if we are to have any sort of chance this year we need our best 22 to bit fit and healthy. Unfortunately, it looks like its going to be a number of weeks before we see that, if at all.

 

[macca23]

Macca23, you've based your reply around the premiership clock theory. One which NC doesn't subscribe to.

You're right. I have and he doesn't.

Neil can say that as much as he likes, Carl, but history says that he's wrong. Common sense says that he's wrong.

e.g. Geelong were hopelesss with the same coach for quite some time and everybody said get rid of him. Gradually their drafees and father son acquisitions got some real experience in them and voila, same coach, but with mature players, ended up with 2 flags in 3 years because the time was right.

Their time will pass in a year or two as several of this group of players move on and their cycle will start again.

If Craig said that with first class drafting and list management, a team can reduce the time in between genuine premiership opportunities, then I'd agree with him. When he implies that a team can be a premiership contender all the time, he doesn't have history on his side.

 

[amer]

I think our age balance at the moment is quite good, maybe just a little top heavy in the over 32's. However, unfortunately, we just don't have the cattle to win a premiership. To take that extra step as it stands at the moment we badly need a quality ruckman, a small forward, at least one more 1st tier midfielder and a few more players with a harder edge - a few players that tackle with to hurt.

Because of the above deficiencies if we are to have any sort of chance this year we need our best 22 to bit fit and healthy. Unfortunately, it looks like its going to be a number of weeks before we see that, if at all.

Bit of a contradiction there - we don't have the cattle but we do if they're all on the park? The feeling I get is you're not convinced either way. We have our deficiencies but so does every other club in the competition; we're just more aware of our own. We'll be around the mark this year and odds on it'll be another close one that decides our fate either way.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Bit of a contradiction there - we don't have the cattle but we do if they're all on the park? The feeling I get is you're not convinced either way. We have our deficiencies but so does every other club in the competition; we're just more aware of our own. We'll be around the mark this year and odds on it'll be another close one that decides our fate either way.

I was abit vague in my comment. What I meant was I do not believe we are a real premiership chance. IMO there are at least 4, probably 6, clubs who are better positioned then we are. However, many on this board do believe we are a chance. If they are right, then we need our best 22 to be fit and firing every week. We don't have the luxury of alot of ready to go ( in the correct age group to win a premiership) players. Starting the year with half the team on one leg was something we really couldn't afford given the lack of ready to go players outside of our first 22.

 

[crowsarethebest]

I think the Ayre's era has really screwed us up. Realistically if we drafted better, recruited better and developed our youngsters better in that time we'd have been right up there for the flag these past few years. With guys like Macca, Edwards, Goody and even Roo a few years ago + some good young talent we would be there already. However with gaping holes in the 26-30 bracket its been close but yet so far. If we drafted a few more talented young kids and developed them well in the Ayre's era instead of loading up on old past it hacks we'd have been pretty much set as we had our star/superstar players in their prime. Now Macca and co. are getting on a bit and once they've retired IMO we'll get exposed a bit, once again due to the lack of players in the upper 20 year old region. We'll have to bank on guys like Vince, Dangerfield, Otten, Mackay etc to become outright stars of the competition with Thommo/Rutten to take leadership/senior roles.

Our midfield is a bit of a concern IMO. Just doesn't have the class of other midfields and also lacks depth. We need more young midfield talent, at the moment we've loaded up on young talls which is fine but our midfield looks super thin once our old agers go.

 

[footy4ever]

Ok, so Carl, you'd be willing so suffer a season of Fremantle game like performances for the greater good?

And what if we're wrong about our talent assessments of the young players who arent ready now? Do we enter a Richmond cycle of perpetual rebuild?

A lot of serious crap has been written throughout the Adelaide board, about our young talent. Of course we have some absolute keepers. But the adoration and blind love for others lured me into thinking we had a dozen champions in the making....then I see them play, sanfl, trials, against freo.

OK, from here on I make my own assessments.

 

[LC40]

Actually loving this thread some of the best stuff I read on Big Footy, all posters have presented pretty good points, great to read!

 

[macca23]

I think the Ayre's era has really screwed us up. Realistically if we drafted better, recruited better and developed our youngsters better in that time we'd have been right up there for the flag these past few years. With guys like Macca, Edwards, Goody and even Roo a few years ago + some good young talent we would be there already. However with gaping holes in the 26-30 bracket its been close but yet so far. If we drafted a few more talented young kids and developed them well in the Ayre's era instead of loading up on old past it hacks we'd have been pretty much set as we had our star/superstar players in their prime. Now Macca and co. are getting on a bit and once they've retired IMO we'll get exposed a bit, once again due to the lack of players in the upper 20 year old region. We'll have to bank on guys like Vince, Dangerfield, Otten, Mackay etc to become outright stars of the competition with Thommo/Rutten to take leadership/senior roles.

Our midfield is a bit of a concern IMO. Just doesn't have the class of other midfields and also lacks depth. We need more young midfield talent, at the moment we've loaded up on young talls which is fine but our midfield looks super thin once our old agers go.

Top post, and I couldn't agree more with the highlighted part re the lack of depth and class in the youth of our mid-field. We have Vince and Dangerfield as emerging guns (Vince probably being there already) but the rest such as Thompson, VB, Reilly etc are good honest players without that match-winning brilliance. We're probably one, maybe 2 guns light in being able to match it with the very best mid-fields, which is the major reason that Andy Otten would have been playing in the mid-field this year after a dominating year down back..

When we get beaten it is invariably because our mid-field gets smashed - the way it did against Freo. IMO we have all positions on the ground more than covered apart from a first class ruck and a couple of class mid-fielders, with the mid-fielders being the major worry.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Top post, and I couldn't agree more with the highlighted part re the lack of depth and class in the youth of our mid-field. We have Vince and Dangerfield as emerging guns (Vince probably being there already) but the rest such as Thompson, VB, Reilly etc are good honest players without that match-winning brilliance. We're probably one, maybe 2 guns light in being able to match it with the very best mid-fields, which is the major reason that Andy Otten would have been playing in the mid-field this year after a dominating year down back..

When we get beaten it is invariably because our mid-field gets smashed - the way it did against Freo. IMO we have all positions on the ground more than covered apart from a first class ruck and a couple of class mid-fielders, with the mid-fielders being the major worry.

Yep its our biggest worry Mac. Ironic that 5 or so years ago kpps were the problem, now we have the kpps we don't have the midfield to compliment them. Anyway, the way I see it if you don't have at least 3 top tier midfielders than you better have amazing toughness/discipline ( see Sydney 2005/2006). Unfortunately, as it stand today we have neither. I think given his role (in and under) Thomson is one of the best at that role therefore he could be considered 1st tier. So to be a chance this year we probably need to find 2 or more 1st tier midfielders. What are the options:

-VB, Symes - Handy midfield depth players but not 1st tier.

-Edwards - A former champion but no longer a 1st tier player. However, still a handy midfield depth player.

-Vince - All class. A possible 1st tier midfielder if he has another year like 2009

-Dangerfield - No doubt this kid will be a star but his best is 2 or so years away. At this stage handy midfield depth player with moments of brilliance

-Sloane - Just the sort of player we need in the midfielder - tackles to hurt and has no fear but his best is 2-4 years away. This year is about development. Impact will be minimal. Midfiled depth player.

So as it stands today we are at least one, probably 2 top tier midfielders short of pushing for a flag this year. So where do we find them? Are there any other candidates on our list? I can see one obvios option and one smokey. If think we really are a chance this year then its time to move Simon Goodwin back into the midfield rotations. Yeah, we may prolong his career by leaving him in the backline but that should be irrelevant when a flag could be there for the taking. Need to go for broke this year. My smokey, and I know I will get shouted down for this, is Johncock. He has all the tools to be a really good midfield player and apparently he is as fit as ever this year. If NC wants to keep his job then he needs to throw caution to the wind. Their pace would also be an asset to a midfield that largely consists of plodders.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Top post, and I couldn't agree more with the highlighted part re the lack of depth and class in the youth of our mid-field. We have Vince and Dangerfield as emerging guns (Vince probably being there already) but the rest such as Thompson, VB, Reilly etc are good honest players without that match-winning brilliance. We're probably one, maybe 2 guns light in being able to match it with the very best mid-fields, which is the major reason that Andy Otten would have been playing in the mid-field this year after a dominating year down back..

When we get beaten it is invariably because our mid-field gets smashed - the way it did against Freo. IMO we have all positions on the ground more than covered apart from a first class ruck and a couple of class mid-fielders, with the mid-fielders being the major worry.

Just a bit harsh on Thompson who has been the primary tagged Crow midfielder in recent seasons .......not playing at his best for a while now, but it appears he's had a succession of niggling injuries, not enough to stop him playing ......but enough just to take the edge off his game

Don't discount Mackays move into the midfield ......was brilliant in there against Carlton PS

 

[LC40]

I definitely believe in the blooding of youth and the theory that if a player is deemed ready to play AFL then he should have a number of consecutive games to find his feet.

I haven’t read anywhere from Carl Spackler where he is championing a wholesale changing of the guard and just playing youth. It is a balancing act and to my interpretation of his argument that is what he is suggesting.

Youth can surprise at times (Ottens) last season, in 1997/1998 Goodwin, McLeod, Johnson, Rucciuto were not experienced players, Goodwin in particular had played less than ten games when he won a premiership.
They need to be given a chance…Bock certainly didn’t set the SANFL on fire when he was promoted and Rutten couldn’t get selected under Ayres so he had no way of showing his wares.

Davis is a good point in question. He is a first round draft pick who must have impressed Rendell greatly because we bypassed a lot of quality players to get him.
In the SANFL he is constantly good, not great, but he is on our list.
He has a strong mark, looks to handball before kicking and rarely panics with the ball. At present he doesn’t run out of defence enough so never catches the eye. I can’t for the life of me see how another whole season of SANFL is going to improve this kid.
He needs to be surrounded by some quality players, who will feed off his handballs and cover his back when he is beaten or out positioned. He needs to learn the pace of the AFL not the SANFL if he is to make it.

What is slowly changing in my mind is the building of a true premiership chance based only on youth.

Drafting young players and hoping they all develop as one into a premiership squad as we have done the last few years is beginning to appear less realistic to me.

When Adelaide won its two premierships we traded for Jarman, Caven, Stevens , Koster, Theissen, Ellen, James, Connell, Robran, Sampson and Bond.
We actually added pieces that we thought would enhance the team.

Sydney added Barry Hall, Paul Williams, Jason Ball, Darren Jolly, Craig Bolton, and Nick Davis to their 2005 premiership team.

Port Adelaide 2004 bought in Hardwick, Schofield, Bishop, Wakelin, Kingsley, Mahoney and Pickett to add some height, hardness and run they thought they were lacking.

Hawthorn 2007 had drafted particularly well and been given the luxury of a number of low draft picks and so only added a few pieces in Gilham, Dew, Guerra and Croad.

Even Geelong with all their Father/Son and low draft picks added Mooney, Ottens and Harley.
Harley played 1 game at Port so his potential was never recognised…players need chances!

Collingwood have decided that amongst other positions they were a ruckman and quality on-baller short to challenge for a flag and so did something about it.

Brisbane this year is another point in case and they have been pro-active in improving their list.

Our last biggest trade was to off load a clearly capable ruckman in Ben Hudson to the Western Bulldogs.
Look at our showdown records pre Hudson, with Hudson and post Hudson to see what I mean. We traded away a tough, hard no nonsense ruckman who could take on Brogan and Lade at their own game and have paid for it ever since.

Did the Wayne Carey trade scar us that badly that the Crows have been so gun shy to re enter the draft in any significant manner…. Time will tell.

Our young players are the future of the club and a few certainly must be bloodied and carried even when some are initially found wanting.
Team balance is important and experienced will always be picked, I just hope that next year the club wakes up from their hibernation and at least consider targeting some specific experienced players for positions we lack at present while continually trying to blend youth into our team.

 

[Huntercrow]

I still think that we have a very good balance of young and established talent on our list.

I also believe that some of the youngsters will need more time in the SANFL, although not sure this will help some of them (Davis and Smack playing in the BP and FB for their clubs)

Craig has said in the past that the club does not believe in bottoming out.

To achieve this the recruiters have had to work from left field (Tippet, Walker, Dangerfield and to a lesser extent Hendo) Basketballers, NSW Scholarship and a lad who made it quite clear that he would not be available for 12 months due to studies (experts were very critical of the Crows for this little coup ).

I think they are on the right track but for the Crows to go all the way this year they will need luck just like all the other clubs.
However it is not a requirement by the AFL that the premiership team has to be the best team through the season, they only have to dominate in the finals.

We do have a good list and I wouldn't judge the Crows too harshly yet.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Personally I don't believe you can win a premiership without either bottoming out at some stage or aggressive trading or both. The only team in the last 10 years to have done it were Geelong but they had the FS factor.

Given the GC and Western Sydney entries quality trading is now a must if you are going to improve your list in the short term. Last year most of our rivals for a top 4 spot improved their list, we stagnated.

 

[ringo200]

When yu look at some recent drafts though we might as well have bottomed out. The major advantage it gives you is the absolutely top line players, I don't think the advantage is that great when it gets to the later rounds.

So the 05 draft we got Vince who might as well have been a top 5 pick.

06 we got Tippett who might as well have been a top 5 pick.

07 we got Danger. How much better would the players we would have got been if we did bottom out those years?

 

[amer]

Dangerfield/Vince/Mackay/Thompson is a good enough top 4 to win the premiership. Whether that combination is up to it in 2010 is the question, so input from Edwards and/or Goodwin would be handy.