List Mgmt. 2022 List Management and trading thread

[Scorpus]

I saw this format on the West Coast board and thought it might help understand our current list position

 

[skittlebrew]

I think it’s a seperate issue honestly

Drafting Turner doesn’t excuse us for leaving Carmichael on the table given what he is and what we need

Could have taken both if so enamoured with Turner

My theory is maybe we didn't think we could provide Carmichael with the same amount of opportunity as Pies could so we took Turner instead?

Clubs often won't get in the way of a player getting more opportunity. Would be a dick move to take Carmichael only to leave him in the ressies when he could be getting a game in the firsts elsewhere.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

My theory is maybe we didn't think we could provide Carmichael with the same amount of opportunity as Pies could so we took Turner instead?

Clubs often won't get in the way of a player getting more opportunity. Would be a dick move to take Carmichael only to leave him in the ressies when he could be getting a game in the firsts elsewhere.

I just wouldn’t understand that when we are literally looking for bigger midfielders that have a point of difference like he does

 

[skittlebrew]

I just wouldn’t understand that when we are literally looking for bigger midfielders that have a point of difference like he does

When has AFC ever concerned itself with having bigger-bodied players?

 

[rabidcrow]

When has AFC ever concerned itself with having bigger-bodied players?

At the press conference this weekend when Cripps rips us a new one again


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Bazz_27]

Off the mark here with his DE. He had 8 soccer kicks against the Crows which didn't count as efficient so brings it right down.

I am sadly a Westies supporter so have an interest in Carmichael's career so have seen everyone of his disposals in AFL. Makes for some interesting viewing how the stat collectors identify what an effective disposal is.

I suspect he isn't in the team due to not quite being AFL fit. Give him time, he will be best 22.

Sent from my CPH1903 using BigFooty.com mobile app

So you have counted his soccer kicks.. the two full games he played he had the worst de on the ground. You can say it's a shit stat or whatever but regardless he was the worst at that stat. No one is saying he won't be a great player but the people that jump all over our recruiting team here are so exhausting. Be somewhat subjective in your opinion. Admit when they do good and call out their shit calls

Also re the mid season draft, perhaps with list spots tight we didn't want an extra player to add as it would mean letting go of nankervis/ newchurch / borlase. Or maybe we would rather pick an 18 year old in the draft

(Sorry to go on a rant -not directed at you Smart Fella )

 

[George Kramer]

So you have counted his soccer kicks.. the two full games he played he had the worst de on the ground. You can say it's a s**t stat or whatever but regardless he was the worst at that stat. No one is saying he won't be a great player but the people that jump all over our recruiting team here are so exhausting. Be somewhat subjective in your opinion. Admit when they do good and call out their s**t calls

Also re the mid season draft, perhaps with list spots tight we didn't want an extra player to add as it would mean letting go of nankervis/ newchurch / borlase. Or maybe we would rather pick an 18 year old in the draft

(Sorry to go on a rant -not directed at you Smart Fella )

Why would we draft an injured player if it was only for this year?

 

[1970crow]

The theory behind building a defence first game plan initially is sound. It’s what Fagan did when he took over at Brisbane and what Roos/Goodwin did at Melbourne. Brisbane’s numbers in particular are fascinating:

Points For:
2016 - 80.45 (14th)
2017 - 85.32 (13th)
2018 - 82.95 (11th)
2019 - 91.09 (1st)
2020* - 87.06 (3rd)
2021 - 96.86 (1st)
2022 - 99.89 (1st)

Points Against:
2016 - 130.55 (18th)
2017 - 114.82 (18th)
2018 - 93.14 (15th)
2019 - 77 (7th)
2020* - 69.71 (7th)
2021 - 72.68 (5th)
2022 - 79.61 (8th)

*multiplied by 1.25 to adjust for shorter quarters.

You can see when Fagan took over he focussed on bringing scores against down, even though he ultimately built an attacking minded game plan which is the highest scoring, it wasn’t until year 3 that he started to build that up.

Unfortunately the reality is that we are only just bottoming out in terms of age and experience, whatever game plan Nicks implements it’s not going to win, and therefore it’s going to look s**t as the players will simply not be good enough to execute. I also don’t think we can possibly know what game plan will succeed for this group in 5 years time, as we don’t know what our list will look like.

However, if Nicks is trying to build a base of contest and defensive pressure, we rank 3rd in contested possessions, 2nd in clearances, and 1st in tackles, so it’s hard to argue with that. In fairness to him, if a team has a solid base of winning contested ball, winning clearance, and applying pressure without the ball, it’s far easier to develop a sound game plan around that.

This is not to say that Nicks is perfect, his selection is baffling at times, and does not suit our long term development, and it’s concerning to see the way some of our youth have progressed in their ability to move the ball, e.g. Schoenberg’s kicking efficiency and score involvements have dropped significantly, at a time we should be starting to see him break out. But the adage of it’s never as good or as a bad as it seems rings true here.

I don’t think the Lions result is particularly fascinating. It just looks like both offense and defence improved together. The gap even increased further in the years they scored the most. And both likely to be due to an improved midfield, which is where games are won and lost.

 

[1970crow]

And you know the first question subject next time Nicks, van Berlo or Burns front the press...

You mean the guys that can’t be questioned and haven’t put a foot wrong until this happened?

 

[1970crow]

And how stupid do Nicks, Burns and van Berlo now look who have all run the line he's a required player yada yada yada not once, not twice, but numerous times including as late as last week?

Any way you slice it those twits in charge have handled it poorly....and it's not the first time..

Some had twigged to their stupidity a little before this particular event. Just sayin.

 

[1970crow]

It makes the decision to recall Crouch two weeks ago look even stupider.

But McAdam was a late out and we needed a fast player that’s good overhead and provides defensive pressure. Can’t think of a more suitable replacement.

 

[1970crow]

OR

Could it be with Matt about to become a father ....his Management has approached the Club about a Contract extension ....and been told no ....might even have been said "At This Stage"

I'm just tickling the ivories here on possible reasons

Regardless of how it went down, we can be sure that after Nix being so clear how valued and required Matt is only a couple of weeks ago, the club didn’t want this hitting the media. Comical stuff really. I’ve asked in the past why the club feels the need to publicly protect the egos of senior players, this is further proof of it being ingrained.

 

[1970crow]

Matt Crouch reportedly furious with our decision!

 

[1970crow]

I don't think Luke Brown has cracked the shits

Injured isn’t he? Played 1.5 SANFL games, give it time. That said, there’s been exceptions. Otto went gracefully, Brown may too.

 

[1970crow]

Rendell really has lost the plot, reckons we could get a second rounder for Brown.

Raises a point though, what happens if no other club wants Crouch, do we pay him out?

You’d think this year’s cap is fully spent with frontloadings, so expect a Gibbs style scenario. But I reckon he finds another club because $ don’t matter, so am acquiring club can negotiate to pay none of his salary. Good depth for a contender. Why we gave him 2 years instead of 1 and having him FA again is beyond me.

 

[Soggy2112]

I don’t think the Lions result is particularly fascinating. It just looks like both offense and defence improved together. The gap even increased further in the years they scored the most. And both likely to be due to an improved midfield, which is where games are won and lost.

Really?

In his first two years they made very little improvement with their scores for, but brought their scores against down by almost 40 points indicating that the key focus was improving defensively.

There’s a similar story with the Dees when Roos took over in 2014.

Points for

2013 - 66.14 (18th)
2014 - 60.73 (18th)
2015 - 71.5 (16th)

Points against

2013 - 122.32 (17th)
2014 - 88.82 (12th)
2015 - 92.91 (13th)

In his first year they actually got worse offensively, and didn’t improve on the ladder, but they did bring scores against down which set the base to build their game on.

We saw similar numbers with Richmond around the time they cracked the finals before going on their run.

Points for:

2012 - 98.59 (8th)
2013 - 97.91 (5th)
2014 - 85.77 (11th)
2015 - 87.73 (9th)

Points against:

2012 - 88.32 (10th)
2013 - 79.73 (3rd)
2014 - 81.09 (8th)
2015 - 71.27 (3rd)

They actually went backwards fairly significantly in attack, but built their defensive base before becoming a higher scoring team in their flag years.

It’s not to say this is the only way to build a flag team, but it is a theory that has worked for a lot of clubs.

 

[1970crow]

Really?

In his first two years they made very little improvement with their scores for, but brought their scores against down by almost 40 points indicating that the key focus was improving defensively.

There’s a similar story with the Dees when Roos took over in 2014.

Points for

2013 - 66.14 (18th)
2014 - 60.73 (18th)
2015 - 71.5 (16th)

Points against

2013 - 122.32 (17th)
2014 - 88.82 (12th)
2015 - 92.91 (13th)

In his first year they actually got worse offensively, and didn’t improve on the ladder, but they did bring scores against down which set the base to build their game on.

We saw similar numbers with Richmond around the time they cracked the finals before going on their run.

Points for:

2012 - 98.59 (8th)
2013 - 97.91 (5th)
2014 - 85.77 (11th)
2015 - 87.73 (9th)

Points against:

2012 - 88.32 (10th)
2013 - 79.73 (3rd)
2014 - 81.09 (8th)
2015 - 71.27 (3rd)

They actually went backwards fairly significantly in attack, but built their defensive base before becoming a higher scoring team in their flag years.

It’s not to say this is the only way to build a flag team, but it is a theory that has worked for a lot of clubs.

Maybe I missed your point. There's nothing in the for/against comparison that suggests there was any particular shift to prioritise defence over attack.

2013 defence +1 position
2014 defence + 6
2015 defence + 3
Fagan
2016 defence -4
2017 defence -5
2018 defence -4
2019 defence -6
2020 defence -4
2021 defence -4
2022 defence -7

You're looking at raw numbers whereas I'm looking at where those scores place them relative to their competition. What I see is a side that started scoring more compared to their opponents.

 

[Magma]

Can really see why we had no interest in this guy. I mean who needs a bloke that actually can kick at goal?

i still cant believe that the club had carmichael and turner next to each other and went turner.

 

[AFC979810]

My theory is maybe we didn't think we could provide Carmichael with the same amount of opportunity as Pies could so we took Turner instead?

Clubs often won't get in the way of a player getting more opportunity. Would be a dick move to take Carmichael only to leave him in the ressies when he could be getting a game in the firsts elsewhere.

That is the worst theory I have heard.

 

[Dangerousfield]

My theory is maybe we didn't think we could provide Carmichael with the same amount of opportunity as Pies could so we took Turner instead?

Clubs often won't get in the way of a player getting more opportunity. Would be a dick move to take Carmichael only to leave him in the ressies when he could be getting a game in the firsts elsewhere.

No need to dream up a theory Skittles, call it for what it is - drafting incompetence!

We gave up the opportunity to try a host of players for free as well as taking Turner, who no other club spoke to, with our second pick. Looking forward to seeing Turner play seniors

 

[Soggy2112]

Maybe I missed your point. There's nothing in the for/against comparison that suggests there was any particular shift to prioritise defence over attack.

2013 defence +1 position
2014 defence + 6
2015 defence + 3
Fagan
2016 defence -4
2017 defence -5
2018 defence -4
2019 defence -6
2020 defence -4
2021 defence -4
2022 defence -7

You're looking at raw numbers whereas I'm looking at where those scores place them relative to their competition. What I see is a side that started scoring more compared to their opponents.

In the first two years of Fagan’s tenure they made relatively small gains offensively, whether you look at points for or the ranking. Their defensive ranking improved at a similar rate but that’s only because they were coming from such a low starting point. I don’t think you can dismiss an almost 40 point swing as being down to being relative to the competition as they were so much worse than the rest of the comp to start with.

Anyway, the main point is that there is a history of teams having success on building a foundation of defence first. This is an area I think Nicks is actually doing well, he’s building a foundation around being strong in the contest and tackling and defending well, as we see we’re ranked highly for CP, clearances and tackles. I think if done well this provides us with a good base to build the rest of our game on. Even if Nicks is not the right guy to carry us forward, the next person will still have that foundation to work with. As we’ve seen with Collingwood, McRae has successfully shifted their game style, but he’s been able to do it on the back of them already being a very strong defensive team as their foundation.

 

[1970crow]

In the first two years of Fagan’s tenure they made relatively small gains offensively, whether you look at points for or the ranking. Their defensive ranking improved at a similar rate but that’s only because they were coming from such a low starting point. I don’t think you can dismiss an almost 40 point swing as being down to being relative to the competition as they were so much worse than the rest of the comp to start with.

Anyway, the main point is that there is a history of teams having success on building a foundation of defence first. This is an area I think Nicks is actually doing well, he’s building a foundation around being strong in the contest and tackling and defending well, as we see we’re ranked highly for CP, clearances and tackles. I think if done well this provides us with a good base to build the rest of our game on. Even if Nicks is not the right guy to carry us forward, the next person will still have that foundation to work with. As we’ve seen with Collingwood, McRae has successfully shifted their game style, but he’s been able to do it on the back of them already being a very strong defensive team as their foundation.

i think you're being blinded by the raw numbers. In 2014 they were 18th for points for and 12th for points against. So relatively 6 positions better at defending than attacking. In 2015 it was 16th and 13th and from there they become a team where it's relatively better at scoring than conceding scores. It just looks like a team that started scoring more than they were conceding, nothing magical about any internal realignment.

 

[LoBu]

When has AFC ever concerned itself with having bigger-bodied players?

We pretty much invented the modern bigger bodied midfield when we stayed Dangerfield.

On SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[skittlebrew]

That is the worst theory I have heard.

lmao. What's your theory? Just pure incompetence? I guess that is AFC drafting's MO

I don't watch ressie's but it sounds like every man and his dog rated Carmichael higher than Turner.

 

[Soggy2112]

i think you're being blinded by the raw numbers. In 2014 they were 18th for points for and 12th for points against. So relatively 6 positions better at defending than attacking. In 2015 it was 16th and 13th and from there they become a team where it's relatively better at scoring than conceding scores. It just looks like a team that started scoring more than they were conceding, nothing magical about any internal realignment.

I have to disagree with you.

When Leppitsch was sacked they had become incredibly easy to score against, and that’s relative to the other teams at the bottom of the ladder.



They were however, compared to other sides at the bottom a much better scoring team. That did not change significantly, however there was a massive change in points against, I don’t think that happened without there being some deliberate planning occurring.

But anyway, we’re arguing over minor points, do you disagree with my overall point?

 

[Gtowncrow]

We pretty much invented the modern bigger bodied midfield when we stayed Dangerfield.

On SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Michael Voss springs to mind.