2015 Delistings

Remove this Banner Ad

1970crow said:
I must be one of those gerantophobes. I don't see Thommo as being a gun extractor. He's very good when Sauce is winning his position and fairly poor when Sauce is not. The word 'extractor' implies that the ball has left the congestion/pressure area, even when he's getting his hands on it, Thommo is no longer a gun at that, he's probably handy at best. Even this year, he hasn't been able to perform near his highest standard for many of his games. He's had 2-3 absolute belters, half a dozen or so decent to average and another 6 or so where he was below average to poor.

One of them, plus CEY will still be relying on injury or Danger's permanent departure. Add to that, if we were to trade in Aish, they may very well find themselves in the same position this year. I think it's a matter that the club clearly doesn't place the kind of trust in these guys to stand up once Thommo's gone but you can bet there's a few clubs in their manager's ear suggesting the exact opposite. I think it will be an absolute shame to see Thommo drop off a cliff and result in the loss of a player who the club should have had more faith in.
Click to expand...
Strong word around over here is Aish to Collingwood, the "Balme/Norwood" factor apparently due to Michael and Andrew still quite close to Balmey???
 

Log in to remove this ad.

1970crow said:
I must be one of those gerantophobes. I don't see Thommo as being a gun extractor. He's very good when Sauce is winning his position and fairly poor when Sauce is not. The word 'extractor' implies that the ball has left the congestion/pressure area, even when he's getting his hands on it, Thommo is no longer a gun at that, he's probably handy at best. Even this year, he hasn't been able to perform near his highest standard for many of his games. He's had 2-3 absolute belters, half a dozen or so decent to average and another 6 or so where he was below average to poor.

One of them, plus CEY will still be relying on injury or Danger's permanent departure. Add to that, if we were to trade in Aish, they may very well find themselves in the same position this year. I think it's a matter that the club clearly doesn't place the kind of trust in these guys to stand up once Thommo's gone but you can bet there's a few clubs in their manager's ear suggesting the exact opposite. I think it will be an absolute shame to see Thommo drop off a cliff and result in the loss of a player who the club should have had more faith in.
Click to expand...
There's a fundamental assumption here that is fatally flawed. That is that CEY being out of the the team is a bad thing. If he's not good enough to force his way into the rotations, then so be it. The same goes for all of our other fringe/not good enough players - Grigg, Kerridge, Lyons, Wright, Mackay, VB, Crouch jnr.

If Aish comes in and earns his place (which would mean playing better than he did this year), then someone else drops out. Having a better player replace a weaker player makes the team stronger. I don't have a problem with a player like CEY, or Matt Crouch, being forced out of the team if it means that someone better has replaced them.

I want the best player to be selected in the team. I don't care if that player is aged 18 or 32.
 
Vader said:
There's a fundamental assumption here that is fatally flawed. That is that CEY being out of the the team is a bad thing. If he's not good enough to force his way into the rotations, then so be it. The same goes for all of our other fringe/not good enough players - Grigg, Kerridge, Lyons, Wright, Mackay, VB, Crouch jnr.

If Aish comes in and earns his place (which would mean playing better than he did this year), then someone else drops out. Having a better player replace a weaker player makes the team stronger. I don't have a problem with a player like CEY, or Matt Crouch, being forced out of the team if it means that someone better has replaced them.

I want the best player to be selected in the team. I don't care if that player is aged 18 or 32.
Click to expand...

Well, that's just a fantastic way to build a side to contend in the future.
 
Vader said:
There's a fundamental assumption here that is fatally flawed. That is that CEY being out of the the team is a bad thing. If he's not good enough to force his way into the rotations, then so be it. The same goes for all of our other fringe/not good enough players - Grigg, Kerridge, Lyons, Wright, Mackay, VB, Crouch jnr.

If Aish comes in and earns his place (which would mean playing better than he did this year), then someone else drops out. Having a better player replace a weaker player makes the team stronger. I don't have a problem with a player like CEY, or Matt Crouch, being forced out of the team if it means that someone better has replaced them.

I want the best player to be selected in the team. I don't care if that player is aged 18 or 32.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but I take into account development. Many people think that in general players aren't really starting to hit their straps until they've got 50 or so games under their belt. When a 20 game player is providing similar output to a veteran, then its rank stupidity to not select the younger player. That's how you build towards something other than another 6-10 finish. I can understand your high degree of comfortableness with our selection policy as it has been like that for a while. I think change is needed and Thommo is where I think it should hav started. It's not the first time I've been out of step with the club on such matters, but that's the fun of it I suppose.
 
headache1 said:
Well, that's just a fantastic way to build a side to contend in the future.
Click to expand...
Might be different if we had 7 or 8 players who are/were rapidly approaching the end of their careers, but that's clearly not the case here.

The only players currently on our list who are aged 30+ are Scott Thompson, James Podsiadly and Brent Reilly. Of those, Radar has already retired and JPod hasn't played a single senior game this year. Thompson is the only 30+ player currently in our senior team.

Given that situation, there is absolutely no problem at all with a "best player gets selected" policy - there are abundant opportunities for younger players to force their way in, if they're good enough (which CEY, Grigg, Kerridge & co are not).
 
1970crow said:
I don't disagree, but I take into account development. Many people think that in general players aren't really starting to hit their straps until they've got 50 or so games under their belt. When a 20 game player is providing similar output to a veteran, then its rank stupidity to not select the younger player. That's how you build towards something other than another 6-10 finish. I can understand your high degree of comfortableness with our selection policy as it has been like that for a while. I think change is needed and Thommo is where I think it should hav started. It's not the first time I've been out of step with the club on such matters, but that's the fun of it I suppose.
Click to expand...
There is no shortage of development opportunities, with or without Thompson as a factor. He's the only player currently in the team aged 30+. It's not as if we're fielding a Dad's Army team, where everyone's a veteran and there's no positions available for any youngsters. That might have been the case in 2005/06 (not that we had any young talent on our list back then anyway), but it's clearly not the case today.

The problem CEY, Grigg, Kerridge & co have is not a lack of development opportunities. It's that they're just not good enough.

I fail to see how dropping a genuine A-grade player, in favour of a C- to D grade player, makes any sense. The fact that the D grade player is 10 years younger doesn't make it any smarter.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of dropping players off the bottom of the list to make way for developing kids. Knight & Atkins have replaced Mackay and Wright in recent weeks and that's a great thing. Mackay & Wright weren't performing and so they were quite rightly replaced. Dropping a player who IS performing on the other hand is a monumentally stupid thing to do.
 
Vader said:
Might be different if we had 7 or 8 players who are/were rapidly approaching the end of their careers, but that's clearly not the case here.

The only players currently on our list who are aged 30+ are Scott Thompson, James Podsiadly and Brent Reilly. Of those, Radar has already retired and JPod hasn't played a single senior game this year. Thompson is the only 30+ player currently in our senior team.

Given that situation, there is absolutely no problem at all with a "best player gets selected" policy - there are abundant opportunities for younger players to force their way in, if they're good enough (which CEY, Grigg, Kerridge & co are not).
Click to expand...

Uhuh. It's worked wonderfully well for us thus far, hasn't it?
 
headache1 said:
Uhuh. It's worked wonderfully well for us thus far, hasn't it?
Click to expand...
How do you mean?

We've seen VB, Mackay and Wright all dropped in favour of kids this year - Wright and Mackay are still out, replaced by Knight and Atkins. If the kids are good enough then they get rewarded. That's the way it should be.

I have no problems with senior players being dropped for kids. Underperforming players should be dropped no matter how long they've been in the team. Thompson isn't underperforming and he shouldn't be dropped. It's that simple.
 
Vader said:
How do you mean?
Click to expand...

What have we achieved in the grand scheme of things since 1998?

We've pumped games into players who have proven time and time again that they're average (Thompson is not somebody I put in that category by the way), and leave players who consistently dominate in the SANFL as reserves for too long. They finally get a go, often as sub (hopefully the last year that will be an issue), don't instantly out perform the veteran player they've replaced, and are turfed as a result, while the veteran comes straight back in after playing a half decent game in the SANFL. Look at Knight and Atkins. They've been given a decent shot, and they're playing well. They aren't afraid to take the game on, despite not having 100 games under their belt. Hell, there were suggestions of Atkins being delisted at the end of this year, which I can only assume is because these people hadn't seen him play. In the short time he's spent in the AFL side, I think he may have changed their opinion. Even the much maligned Jarryd Lyons has played very well in recent games. You mention Kerridge not being good enough, yet what exactly has Van Berlo done to deserve a spot over him? He hasn't been any good in the AFL, and his form at SANFL level wasn't any better than Kerridge either.

We do seem to be on the improve in this regard, with Wright and Mackay now playing where their senior form suggests they should be playing (even if it did take nearly 3 quarters of a season to happen). For too long though, we've held this pattern of veterans being able to put in consistently terrible performances, and get away with it, whilst reserve players deserving of a shot have to keep plugging away in the SANFL. If the form of a senior player isn't good enough, send them back to the SANFL and make them earn their spot again with consistent form like the younger players have to display.

As for the very senior players, all I want is for those who are nearing the end of their careers to be treated as if they're nearing the end of their careers. Not as if they're going to be around for the team to lean on for the next 5 years. Manage them so when they do play, they're at full strength, and give the up and comers a bigger level of responsibility by playing their role when do they come in. Scott Thompson is having a good overall season, but he's had two games in a row which aren't up to his usual standard, and they've been against some of the easiest opposition we've faced this year. Are they just a couple of average games, or is he starting to feel the effects of the long AFL season? At 32, it's hard to know.

As for your original comment, I want the team picked that's going to give us the best chance of winning a flag. If that doesn't coincide with where the team is at realistically during that season, then I want a team picked that gives us the best chance of winning a flag in the future. I'm sick of finishing mid table, only to rinse and repeat the same well tested methods, and achieve the same result again, and again, and again.
 
In many ways I agree with you, but you're really not arguing about the stupidity of dropping Thompson though. You're arguing against something completely different.

I have no problems with under-performing senior players being given the boot, and I agree that mediocrity has been tolerated for far too long. I'm not defending the selection of VB ahead of Kerridge, as far as I'm concerned that's a nil-all draw. I'm defending the selection of Scott Thompson, who has been one of our best players for the majority of this season.

You want to know why we haven't won a flag since 1998? I think we were unlucky in 05/06, but since then we simply haven't had the talent on our team list. Not through lack of development - we just haven't had enough cattle with top end talent. We have far too many players who are reasonable at AFL level, but not good enough to take the team where we want it to go. VB, Wright, Mackay, Grigg, Kerridge, Lyons, CEY, Martin, Shaw, Hartigan, the list goes on. They're all mediocre, the only difference is the age of the players. Right now we're debating whether VB or Kerridge should be selected. The reality is that both are mediocre at best. We can bring Kerridge in and give him games, but it's a zero sum game. Kerridge doesn't make the team any better. It's not a matter of arguing which should be in the team, when the answer is that neither would be if we had sufficient depth of quality to be a premiership contender.

I'm not saying that we'll never win a premiership with these players on our list. That's just rubbish and the whole argument disintegrates with just two words - Aaron Keating. What I am saying is that we have far too many of this type of player on our list - mediocre to average foot soldiers, who lack top end talent. Replacing one mediocre player with another doesn't move us forward - it's one step forward and one step back.

The real question is how we go about getting rid of all of these mediocre foot soldiers, replacing them with players of genuine talent? There are a number of reasons why that hasn't happened - some of it's due to the Tiprat penalties, some of it's due to the club's policy of never bottoming out. Some of it's just down to dumb luck, with a distinct lack of father son players worth drafting in the club's 25 year history. Changing the list's overall talent level is the challenge faced by our current list management team.

None of this has anything at all to do with Scott Thompson....

There is no doubt at all that Thompson is closer to the end of his career than the start. His form may well fall off a cliff next year. He may equally well go out close to the top of his game. Only time will tell. What we do know is that he's currently performing at a level which makes him one of our first midfielders selected each week - only Dangerfield & Sloane would be selected before him. Only a fool would suggest dropping him for a D-grade player given the present circumstances. If his form drops off next year, then he could & should be dropped - I'm not saying that he's "undroppable". But that should certainly be the case while he continues to perform at a high level.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Vader said:
In many ways I agree with you, but you're really not arguing about the stupidity of dropping Thompson though. You're arguing against something completely different.

I have no problems with under-performing senior players being given the boot, and I agree that mediocrity has been tolerated for far too long. I'm not defending the selection of VB ahead of Kerridge, as far as I'm concerned that's a nil-all draw. I'm defending the selection of Scott Thompson, who has been one of our best players for the majority of this season.

You want to know why we haven't won a flag since 1998? I think we were unlucky in 05/06, but since then we simply haven't had the talent on our team list. Not through lack of development - we just haven't had enough cattle with top end talent. We have far too many players who are reasonable at AFL level, but not good enough to take the team where we want it to go. VB, Wright, Mackay, Grigg, Kerridge, Lyons, CEY, Martin, Shaw, Hartigan, the list goes on. They're all mediocre, the only difference is the age of the players. Right now we're debating whether VB or Kerridge should be selected. The reality is that both are mediocre at best. We can bring Kerridge in and give him games, but it's a zero sum game. Kerridge doesn't make the team any better. It's not a matter of arguing which should be in the team, when the answer is that neither would be if we had sufficient depth of quality to be a premiership contender.

I'm not saying that we'll never win a premiership with these players on our list. That's just rubbish and the whole argument disintegrates with just two words - Aaron Keating. What I am saying is that we have far too many of this type of player on our list - mediocre to average foot soldiers, who lack top end talent. Replacing one mediocre player with another doesn't move us forward - it's one step forward and one step back.

The real question is how we go about getting rid of all of these mediocre foot soldiers, replacing them with players of genuine talent? There are a number of reasons why that hasn't happened - some of it's due to the Tiprat penalties, some of it's due to the club's policy of never bottoming out. Some of it's just down to dumb luck, with a distinct lack of father son players worth drafting in the club's 25 year history. Changing the list's overall talent level is the challenge faced by our current list management team.

None of this has anything at all to do with Scott Thompson....

There is no doubt at all that Thompson is closer to the end of his career than the start. His form may well fall off a cliff next year. He may equally well go out close to the top of his game. Only time will tell. What we do know is that he's currently performing at a level which makes him one of our first midfielders selected each week - only Dangerfield & Sloane would be selected before him. Only a fool would suggest dropping him for a D-grade player given the present circumstances. If his form drops off next year, then he could & should be dropped - I'm not saying that he's "undroppable". But that should certainly be the case while he continues to perform at a high level.
Click to expand...

applause_3.gif


Standing-ovation-o.gif



tumblr_m6gcetvhPy1r2qvkg.gif
 
Vader said:
Possibly Dangerfield. :(

That's not to say that I agree with your premise. At this point in time, Brad's return would force Lyons out of the team, not Matt. With the sub rule disappearing next year (allegedly), there's no reason why both of them wouldn't be included in the rotations.

Thompson should (and almost certainly will) be given another year, based on his performances this year. Only our resident gerontophobes would argue otherwise (and there's no shortage of those around here). Whether he drops off the edge of a cliff, or plays out the season and retires while still in good form, only time will tell. If his form drops off a cliff, then his absence creates a vacancy for a younger player. If it doesn't, we're better off by having a genuine gun midfield extractor in the team.
Click to expand...

And He's back. God we have missed you Vader. Brad's return would force Matt out before Lyons as Lyons has shown that he can play forward as well as midfield.
 
crows dude said:
And He's back. God we have missed you Vader. Brad's return would force Matt out before Lyons as Lyons has shown that he can play forward as well as midfield.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. Quite possible that it could be another player forced out, with a subsequent re-shuffle. VB maybe...
 
The order would be B Crouch, Lyons then M Crouch. It would be bad list managment to give S Thompson another year imo
 
For all our limitations due to sanctions and some poor decision we do seem to be heading into right direction shown by keenness to play Atkins and Knight and dropping of Wright and Mackay although not as quick as most would like.
So agree with Vader no reason with Pods and Reilly going, to cut only other over 30 in Thommo. and then down to his form and our positioning whether last season.
Lot of other decisions who to keep and who to trade will depend on Dangers decision which I believe club already know if going back to Vic.
Be very disappointed if traded Kerridge for anything than low 2nd round pick as has shown other clubs he can play even if not rated by our coaches.
Lets not do another Gunston trade.
Think Lyons and M Crouch in particular will provide great service and do not want to lose. And of course keeping big brother most essential to remain patient.
Whether players like Martin and Wright get delisted will revolve around what picks need to trade with to get a couple of trades done which will be more reverent if lose Danger . But certainly not of any trade value.

Definite outs
===============
Reilly
Siggins
Pods
Lowden
Osborne ( rookie )

Close Definites
==========
Martin
Wright
Shaw ( still think got it but might have lost his chance last week)

In closing only thing re contracts disappointed in is not having Lynch sorted out by now as think really important to our forward movement
 
craig crowing said:
Definite outs
===============
Reilly
Siggins
Pods
Lowden
Osborne ( rookie )

Close Definites
==========
Martin
Wright
Shaw ( still think got it but might have lost his chance last week)
Click to expand...

Lowden is contracted for 2016 and won't be delisted
 
craig crowing said:
Oops and why, so have experienced Vb and Lowden and Mackay in SANFL
Click to expand...
At the time we contracted him, Jacobs was the only other ruckman on the list. ROB was subsequently taken in the rookie draft and has gone past him, but that couldn't have been foreseen during trade week last year.

In any case, Lowden has always been a "break glass in case of emergency" player - just like Angus Graham before him. He's an insurance policy, against the possibility that something happens to Jacobs. Nothing more, nothing less.

Having Mackay in the SANFL, with 2 full years of his contract left to run - that's the one which concerns me the most. He should never have been given a 4-year contract. 2 years was all his form could justify at the time, and things haven't improved since then.
 
Vader said:
At the time we contracted him, Jacobs was the only other ruckman on the list. ROB was subsequently taken in the rookie draft and has gone past him, but that couldn't have been foreseen during trade week last year.

In any case, Lowden has always been a "break glass in case of emergency" player - just like Angus Graham before him. He's an insurance policy, against the possibility that something happens to Jacobs. Nothing more, nothing less.

Having Mackay in the SANFL, with 2 full years of his contract left to run - that's the one which concerns me the most. He should never have been given a 4-year contract. 2 years was all his form could justify at the time, and things haven't improved since then.
Click to expand...
You know th worse thing than 2 years left to run on DMacks contract? The fact it's 3 years left to run
 

Remove this Banner Ad

2015 Delistings

Similar threads

C
  • Poll
Delist Lachie Murphy
2 3
Replies
68
Views
2K
cleanhands
C
B
Analysis Adelaide vs Sydney list builds - 2015 to 2023
Replies
17
Views
680
BACCS
B
John Who
Analysis A look at our “significant” losses over the years 2015-2023
Replies
9
Views
622
PCORF
P

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top