Youth v Experience

[Alex99]

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.

M23, I disagree and history suggests that the premiership window theory is a fallacy. Adelaide Crows in 1997, Brisbane Lions in 2001 and Hawthorn in 2008 are 3 good examples where no one saw that premiership coming.

January 1997, no one, not even the most ardent supporter of the Adelaide Crows would have dared suggest we were a premiership threat, not after coming of the Robert Shaw era and the biggest player shake up we had seem in the 7 short years of existence. Even in early June or July our premiership window was still very much shut.

Round 8 2001, the Brisbane Lions were absolutely panted by Carlton at Optus Oval and some media outlets were suggest that was the most incepted performance by any team for 25 years. Round 9, the Adelaide Crows ventured up to the GABBA and were lucky enough to come away with a 5 point victory. round 10 – the”if it bleeds, you can kill it” line from Rambo was used by Leigh Mathews as motivation against the reigning premiers Essendon and then went on to win their remaining games for the season and 3 out of the next 4 premiership. However, back to the round 8 game against Carlton and Brisbane premiership window would have been nailed SHUT. Even before that, they were not considered a premiership team.

Hawthorn in 2008 came from nowhere – almost replicating the Adelaide Crows in 1997 rise from obscurity to win the premiership. They opened that window and walked straight thought.

Premiership window – fallacy, It’s about taking that opportunity when it is handed to you and unfortunately under the coaching of Neil Craig we have not taken that opportunity.

 

[Good Win]

To be honest, I think we are still a few years away from being a genuine premiership threat. A large percentage of our squad is in that 22-25 y.o range, a few years short of reaching their "peak age". Assuming what i said is correct (the premiership part), IMO we should be preparing for our premiership window and deciding on what players WILL be part of our premiership side. Apart from the big 3, Stevens 28, Burton 31, Doughty 30 (and arguably Hentschel) will not be part of this side. It make sense to start blooding the premiership potential players now? Right?

With this in mind we would have:
Davis > Stevens
McKernan > Hentschel
and Sloane > Doughty (keeps his spot due to LT injuries however)

I guess it comes down to whether playing AFL when your still a bit off the pace is beneficial or detrimental.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

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.

Geelong's success often gets palmed off as a gift of the father-son rule.

But that ignores how they aggressively managed their list from 2001-06. Players they got rid of during those years include Clint Bizzell, Charlie Gardiner, Henry Playfair, Tim Callan, Paul Chambers, David Clarke, Kent Kingsley, Matthew McCarthy, Brent Moloney, James Rahilly, David Spriggs, Peter Street and later Steven King.

Some experience on that list, some average players, some middle-range players, some that held their own at AFL level without ever being outstanding. But Geelong decided that these players ultimately weren't good enough and couldn't take them forward. So they got rid of them which freed up opportunities to invest games into some of their younger players. It meant that they had several finishes outside the eight and Thompson almost got the boot as a result. But during this time they were building the foundation of the team that would dominate the competition from 2007-09.

We are much more forgiving and tolerant of mid-range talent. Would we have delisted all the players from above? Or would we have hung on to them, found roles that they could survive in, celebrated their training-track work ethic and rewarded them with leadership roles?

 

[Crow-mo]

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.

1. how long do you think Ayres was in charge for?
2. of the 4 drafts in his tenure, this included 2 of the worst draft classes in history.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Geelong's success often gets palmed off as a gift of the father-son rule.

But that ignores how they aggressively managed their list from 2001-06. Players they got rid of during those years include Clint Bizzell, Charlie Gardiner, Henry Playfair, Tim Callan, Paul Chambers, David Clarke, Kent Kingsley, Matthew McCarthy, Brent Moloney, James Rahilly, David Spriggs, Peter Street and later Steven King.

Some experience on that list, some average players, some middle-range players, some that held their own at AFL level without ever being outstanding. But Geelong decided that these players ultimately weren't good enough and couldn't take them forward. So they got rid of them which freed up opportunities to invest games into some of their younger players. It meant that they had several finishes outside the eight and Thompson almost got the boot as a result. But during this time they were building the foundation of the team that would dominate the competition from 2007-09.

We are much more forgiving and tolerant of mid-range talent. Would we have delisted all the players from above? Or would we have hung on to them, found roles that they could survive in, celebrated their training-track work ethic and rewarded them with leadership roles?

Ouch. This could very well be one of the most accurate posts I have seen on this board in quite sometime. Your critics will call it anti-AFC, negative dribble and demand we give Brent Reilly another 3 year contract.

 

[Crow-mo]

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.

this is what I was saying a couple of weeks ago. we don't have the top line gunnage, we know that. But it looks like we might not have the depth either.

that's not an ideal situation.

 

[Crow-mo]

Dangerfield/Vince/Mackay/Thompson is a good enough top 4 to win the premiership.

that's a guess, not a statement of fact.

problem is, no one knows (including you) whether you're right.

 

[Crow-mo]

Geelong's success often gets palmed off as a gift of the father-son rule.

But that ignores how they aggressively managed their list from 2001-06. Players they got rid of during those years include Clint Bizzell, Charlie Gardiner, Henry Playfair, Tim Callan, Paul Chambers, David Clarke, Kent Kingsley, Matthew McCarthy, Brent Moloney, James Rahilly, David Spriggs, Peter Street and later Steven King.

Some experience on that list, some average players, some middle-range players, some that held their own at AFL level without ever being outstanding. But Geelong decided that these players ultimately weren't good enough and couldn't take them forward. So they got rid of them which freed up opportunities to invest games into some of their younger players. It meant that they had several finishes outside the eight and Thompson almost got the boot as a result. But during this time they were building the foundation of the team that would dominate the competition from 2007-09.

We are much more forgiving and tolerant of mid-range talent. Would we have delisted all the players from above? Or would we have hung on to them, found roles that they could survive in, celebrated their training-track work ethic and rewarded them with leadership roles?

I agree, or at least I agree that this is what Geelong did and how it was central to their success.

Now this doesn't mean its a blueprint, but we are been an inert ball of inactivity for a while now. and I am not sure there is an example of an inactive, wait n see, hope for our turn, team ever winning a flag in the modern era.

 

[amer]

We've cleared a lot of footballers out under Craig who were perceived in various circles to have petrol tickets left though. Torney, McGregor, Shirley, Welsh, Bode, Perrie, Biglands, Massie, it's not as if we've carried everyone through.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

We've cleared a lot of footballers out under Craig who were perceived in various circles to have petrol tickets left though. Torney, McGregor, Shirley, Welsh, Bode, Perrie, Biglands, Massie, it's not as if we've carried everyone through.

I'll pay Massie. Skipworth and Ladhams too but that's all.

The others were on their last legs, could have maybe squeezed out one more season but that's it. None of them were in their early to mid twenties with footy ahead of them. We squeezed every last drop out of them.

From that list of Geelong players I named a heap got picked up by other clubs - Bizzell (Melbourne), Gardiner (St Kilda), Playfair (Sydney), Callan (Bulldogs), Kingsley (Richmond), Moloney (Melbourne), Spriggs (Sydney), Street (Bulldogs) and King (St Kilda). They made (relatively) early calls on these guys. Compare that to ours?

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

I'll pay Massie. Skipworth and Ladhams too but that's all.

The others were on their last legs, could have maybe squeezed out one more season but that's it. None of them were in their early to mid twenties with footy ahead of them. We squeezed every last drop out of them.

From that list of Geelong players I named a heap got picked up by other clubs - Bizzell (Melbourne), Gardiner (St Kilda), Playfair (Sydney), Callan (Bulldogs), Kingsley (Richmond), Moloney (Melbourne), Spriggs (Sydney), Street (Bulldogs) and King (St Kilda). They made (relatively) early calls on these guys. Compare that to ours?

So who on our list is do you think should have been moved on Carl?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So who on our list is do you think should have been moved on Carl?

Nothing ground-breaking - the usuals on the 'much-maligned' list. Massie, Skipworth, Shirley, Perrie, Biglands, Jericho, McGregor. All held onto for too long IMO but they survived due to our club legends all being in their prime and carrying the bulk of the workload.

I have to also admit though that I would have moved on Doughty and Stevens too and they've since gone on to play some pretty damn good football. Always the risk when a club delists a player.

I'd have been interested to see which ones would have been picked up by other clubs had we let these guys go 3-4 years ago.

 

[NTRabbit]

Massie, Skipworth, Shirley, Perrie, Biglands, Jericho, McGregor

Massie, shouldn't be there now, can't really say whether he went a year too long or not. 50/50 perhaps.

Skipworth played 21 games in our swashbuckling 2005 campaign, spent all of 2006 in the SANFL and was delisted before the 2007 season. Are you suggesting we should have cast him adrift at the end of 2005? Or that we should not have re-reookie listed him after first casting him adrift at the end of 2002?

I think Shirley should still be on our list, he's a good depth player, and we sorely lack depth right now.

McGregor stayed as long as he was still ahead of the very green potential KPP's we had on our list behind him, as well as Hentschel. Once it became clear that he had fallen behind the developing forwards he was moved on. He certainly didn't even come close to staying a season too long, his last two seasons acting as depth cover for greenhorns that often needed breaks.

Perrie probably stayed a season too long, but again, I don't recall him stealing games from anyone, being an average forward at a time when all we had to choose from were Perrie, MCGregor, Gill, Welsh and and underwhelming Jericho.

Biglands had to stay on, because our hand was forced by the moving on/departure of Clarke, the failure of John Meesen, and perhaps more significantly the defection of Hudson to the Bulldogs in an "I'm going, you get something or nothing" deal. He was literally the third and final ruckman on our list after all of that. Even then, because he was recovering from knee surgery he never "stole" a single game from Griffin, Maric or the temporarily recast Tippett, and to suggest that a pair of scrawny teenagers should have been getting a game ahead of two hard bodied, senior ruckmen in a top 4 team in 05 and 06 is ludicrous.

Jericho was a young, theoretically talented, middle range player, much in the way several of our youngsters are now, who the coaching staff thought was talented enough to persist with. He was given every opportunity, but failed to live up to expectations and was delisted as a 24 year old. I honestly thought Jericho would be a perfect example of how you want things done.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Geelong could have justified keeping all their delistees if they'd wanted to as well.

 

[NTRabbit]

Geelong could have justified keeping all their delistees if they'd wanted to as well.

That's the best you can come up with? I provide you with good reasons as to why certain players were not shoved out the door when you wanted them to be, and the best you can do is say someone else might have done something slightly different, therefore it's wrong?

The facts remain, that every single one of our current younger players has been well developed, has only gotten games when earned, kept their spot when deserved, and has not had anything "stolen" from them by a senior player. Vince, Tippett, Otten, Mackay, Dangerfield, Walker, Maric, Moran. All have been used, held back, rested and rotated in their development to the point where 5 of them are walk up first 22, and the other three probably will be by the end of the year. After them, there is not a single instance of a player being held out of the side by a low performing senior, while demonstrably being ready for the AFL themselves. They've all had chances, even Jacky, and they've all either blown them, or petered out over a few weeks.

Those young draftees who were not good enough to earn games, have been released, those senior players who have been surpassed and no longer have a place in the side have retired or moved on.

On the other hand, if you'd rather we jettison all of our depth players, players who have a proven ability to play at AFL level, even if not spectacularly so, who fill up the gaps between stars, or caused by injuries, and replace them with 5th round speculator picks every season, then there's simply no sense arguing with you.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

On the other hand, if you'd rather we jettison all of our depth players, players who have a proven ability to play at AFL level, even if not spectacularly so, who fill up the gaps between stars, or caused by injuries, and replace them with 5th round speculator picks every season, then there's simply no sense arguing with you.

You'd like to think that's what I've been proposing, because it's easy to argue against. Of course that isn't my position. Or anyone's.

One of the benefits Geelong gained by getting rid of some of their depth players while they still had some value in the wider competition was that they could trade for Brad Ottens and fill a genuine shortcoming. Conversely we've been dragged kicking and screaming into trade week and only when contract negotiations break down.

Our problem is that after 2005 and 2006 we thought we were good enough. We didn't realise just how heavily the club legends were influencing our results. We of course knew they were good players we just didn't realise how ineffective the rest of our senior core was.

The last few years when we started relying on these depth players to help win us games we have come back to the pack at pace and the likes of St Kilda, Geelong, Hawthorn and now the Bulldogs and Collingwood have cruised past us.

We've missed a generation and now whether we can press for a premiership depends on how kids like Dangerfield, Tippett, Walker and Mackay can pick up the slack that Goodwin, Edwards and McLeod can no longer carry. Our list management over the last 7-8 seasons means that our performance essentially hinges on players who are either >30 or <23. There are a handful of obvious exceptions in that middle age group but there are a lot of 'role players' too.

We bemoan our poor draft results and our wasted first round picks but Fergus Watts, John Meesen, James Sellar, Darren Pfeiffer... these guys were all highly rated as young players. Were we just unlucky or poor judges of talent, or is it something to do with how we handle these players? Their position in the draft is dictated by the talent they displayed up to the age of 17. But are the years 18-21 the more important ones in terms of shaping a players' career. What responsibility (if any) do we carry?

Are we too cautious with our young players? Are they held back for too long? I've plucked a few of our players and compared them to similar(ish) players who were drafted around the same position in the same year. Now, I realise that a lot of these are pretty selective comparisons on my part. But it's more to raise the question, Are we doing things differently to other clubs? And are we right to be doing things the way we are?

2008
Tyrone Vickery 12 games
Phil Davis 0 games
Ryan Schoenmakers 17 games

2007
Myke Cook 6 games
Chris Mayne 26 games

2006
James Sellar 17 games
Jack Reiwoldt 51 games

2005
Scott Pendlebury 83 games
Richard Douglas 62 games
Grant Birchall 94 games
Bernie Vince 62 games
Mathew Stokes 79 games

2004
Chris Knights 76 games
Justin Sherman 106 games

2001
Brent Reilly 120 games
Nick Dal Santo 176 games
James Kelly 157 games

 

[amer]

I'll tell you something, and I won't be popular for saying this, but I do wonder if we are being held back by the old firm. Goodwin, McLeod, Edwards looking good throughout the season then faltering at pivotal moments in finals. We've gone through 5 campaigns with these blokes under Craig and all have been strikingly similar; damn close, so ****ing close, but not there.

It seems a popular view that when they move on our chance to win the big one goes with them. I don't see that at all, to be perfectly honest. The loss of an irreplaceable player occurs when they cease to play irreplaceable football. We're well past that point with McLeod, and you'd argue Edwards is just crossing that mark now. Goodwin is not the penetrating, danger midfielder he was 4 or 5 years ago. 8 point edging at the hands of the Saints in 05; within 4 points against the Eagles in 06, free kick against Edwards seals the result; 3 point heartbreaker in 07 after getting out to a 38 point lead; utter letdown in 08; 5 point heartbreaker in 2009 including turnover after Edwards turnover, a ho-hum game from McLeod and some costly errors from Goodwin when momentum needed to be snatched back. Mackay, Tippett, Vince the shining lights. Is there a message in these losses?

330 odd games on McLeod's stat sheet is a number, nothing more. The stat doesn't run out onto the ground and collect us 35 possessions and a couple of goals against Geelong in a crunch final. Experience is important, but if the holders of it are tapering physically you're staring the law of diminishing returns in the face. It's in the back of my mind; whether it's time to accept that these guys can't get us there and to turn our attention to the next generation.

 

[amer]

And that's something else: we have the team now. You can choose to mull over a minor deficiency like the lack of a fast, small crumbing forward, or that one or two players on the fringes lack a bit of hardness at the football, but we have a team overall that can legitimately contend. We have Knights, we have Porplyzia, we have Tippett, Vince, Mackay, Dangerfield, Walker, an All-Australian FB/CHB combination, elite talent. We have tough-as-nails competitors who will give you everything like Thompson, van Berlo, Symes, Maric. Reilly and Griffin may squib it, but they are just two blokes, and two blokes who are by no means walk up starts. Geelong carried the long-time downhill skiing Byrnes in their side in 2007, and the horrifically uncoordinated Blake, but won the flag. Hawthorn carried squibbers through its 2008 campaign, and won the flag.

I don't give a stuff what the continual doubters say, we should be in it up to our ears this year and if it doesn't unfold that way, I just wonder if the chopping bloke shouldn't turn to some of the blokes who, with those memories of our fluky breakthrough flags continuing to linger, will be difficult to say goodbye to.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Good points Amer, however it could also be argued without Mcleod, Edwards and Goodwin we don't get the double chance in 2005/2006.

Just another thing, given Carls comments re Geelong yesterday would Geelong have given 4/32 and older players an extra year knowing they were only an outside chance at a premiership or would they have looked torwards the future and bid them farewell at the end of 2009.

 

[Bicks]

Reilly and Griffin may squib it, but they are just two blokes, and two blokes who are by no means walk up starts.

To mention Reilly in the same sentence as Griffin was bad enough, but to suggest Reilly lacks intestinal fortitude is not on, absolute b/s!!!!!

Anyone that has played 120 games in the cauldron that is AFL football is definately no squib!!!!

 

[Vader]

Are we too cautious with our young players? Are they held back for too long? I've plucked a few of our players and compared them to similar(ish) players who were drafted around the same position in the same year. Now, I realise that a lot of these are pretty selective comparisons on my part. But it's more to raise the question, Are we doing things differently to other clubs? And are we right to be doing things the way we are?

2008
Tyrone Vickery 12 games
Phil Davis 0 games
Ryan Schoenmakers 17 games

2007
Myke Cook 6 games
Chris Mayne 26 games

2006
James Sellar 17 games
Jack Reiwoldt 51 games

2005
Scott Pendlebury 83 games
Richard Douglas 62 games
Grant Birchall 94 games
Bernie Vince 62 games
Mathew Stokes 79 games

2004
Chris Knights 76 games
Justin Sherman 106 games

2001
Brent Reilly 120 games
Nick Dal Santo 176 games
James Kelly 157 games

A bit tough with the Davis, Cook & Sellar comparisons there. The players you've compared them to mostly play with Freo or Richmond - teams which have spent the last couple of years down in the cellar. The kids on these teams haven't had any senior players to compete against. Schoenmakers doesn't play for a cellar dwellar, but he does play for a team with a desperate shortage of KPP defenders.

Bernie Vince played every game for which his form justified selection. His performances in 2006 & 2007 were far from satisfactory - it wasn't until Goodwin took him under his wing during the 2008 pre-season that he started to show the star qualities we now admire.

I'm curious to know how many games Knights & Reilly have missed through injury - I suspect they wouldn't be too far behind their alternative selections once these are taken into account.

 

[Vader]

Just another thing, given Carls comments re Geelong yesterday would Geelong have given 4/32 and older players an extra year knowing they were only an outside chance at a premiership or would they have looked torwards the future and bid them farewell at the end of 2009.

Well, the Cats DO have 4 players aged 30+ on their list this year - Milburn turns 33 in 2 weeks; Scarlett, Mooney and Ottens are all 30. Joining them in the next 12-18 months are Wojcinski, Ling, Podsiadly, Enright, Chapman and Rooke. It will be VERY interesting to see how they manage the departure of so many veterans within a short space of time.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Well, the Cats DO have 4 players aged 30+ on their list this year - Milburn turns 33 in 2 weeks; Scarlett, Mooney and Ottens are all 30. Joining them in the next 12-18 months are Wojcinski, Ling, Podsiadly, Enright, Chapman and Rooke. It will be VERY interesting to see how they manage the departure of so many veterans within a short space of time.

Who cares how they manage it when they have another 2 premierships in the cupboard.

 

[footy4ever]

To mention Reilly in the same sentence as Griffin was bad enough, but to suggest Reilly lacks intestinal fortitude is not on, absolute b/s!!!!!

Anyone that has played 120 games in the cauldron that is AFL football is definately no squib!!!!

So sick of the bullshit written on here about how bad Reilly is. We have all this adoration for the young peerless stars coming thru - unfounded idolatry, and dismiss quality players like Reilly.

 

[NTRabbit]

2008
Tyrone Vickery 12 games
Phil Davis 0 games
Ryan Schoenmakers 17 games

Vickery plays for the Tigers, he was pretty much a top 5 player the minute he walked through the door such was the disgraceful state of their list, and is one of only three ruckmen on their list.

Schoenmakers plays for a team with no key defenders to speak of, who actually went and poached a third defender from North to use as a key defender. I'm sure if Bock and Stevens did not exist, and Rutten retired right this second with a broken foot we'd be playing Young or Davis in defence too.

Phil Davis has demonstrated he is not ready to play AFL football - perhaps that missed season which helped him fall to us in the draft also set his development back a year.

2007
Myke Cook 6 games
Chris Mayne 26 games

Mayne is an excellent forward, who will probably be sitting only a rung or two below Porplyzia and LeCras by seasons end - he also plays for Fremantle, meaning he's had little in the way of competition for his place.

Myke Cook is an average, middle of the road midfielder who has yet to make any real impression, despite quite shockingly and controversially earning a place ahead of Rob Shirley to open the 2009 season.

2006
James Sellar 17 games
Jack Reiwoldt 51 games

Riewoldt is an average forward in a rubbish team, Sellar stagnated after the draft for a couple of seasons much to the dismay of our supporters and enjoyment of our cross town rivals, and despite showing some small promise really only earned those games by being last man standing after an injury train.

2005
Scott Pendlebury 83 games
Richard Douglas 62 games
Grant Birchall 94 games
Bernie Vince 62 games
Mathew Stokes 79 games

Vince was rubbish for a couple of seasons, not deserving of games until Goodwin gave him a rocket. Douglas is apparently getting games right now when he shouldn't be, if you follow all the post match threads.

2004
Chris Knights 76 games
Justin Sherman 106 games

Injury

2001
Brent Reilly 120 games
Nick Dal Santo 176 games
James Kelly 157 games

Injury. Dal Santo also walked into the club which finished 15th with just 4 wins the year before.