List Mgmt. 2024 List Management discussion

Prediction- Who is delisted this year(not retirements).

  • Berry

  • McCluggage

  • Lyons

  • McCarthy

  • Answerth

  • Lane

  • Prior

  • Madden

  • Lester

  • Joyce

  • Zorko

  • Michael

  • Brain

  • Reville

Results are only viewable after voting.

Remove this Banner Ad

Reader mode
FB Starcevich Andrews Payne
HB Zorko Lester Coleman
C Clugg Neale Berry
HF Rayner Hipwood Ah Chee
FF Cameron Morris Lohman
Foll McInerny Dunkley W Ashcroft
Int L Ashcroft Willmot Fletcher Bailey
Sub McCarthy

Trying to come up with a 2025 team and I don't see where Day fits other than backup. It is one of the bolded guys that would come out for Day or any other tall forward and I don't see based on history, both recent and past any of those guys coming out without an injury for a third tall. I know previously it has been our preferred method, though when Gunston was injured we played with two.

Hippy could play some ruck, I did notice he did a small amount in the GF. We obviously need some KPF cover though so Day makes sense.
 
lioninthesand said:
There will always be a lean toward players wanting to go to good teams.

But players went to WC, North, Freo, Saints.

Port and Pies had questionable trade period IMO.

Dogs ok.

Hawks did well but far from an established powerhouse, Battle and Barass arnt superstars.

Lions and Swans sat idle in terms of players in.

Agree in general terms but I think more teams than ever got what they want.
Click to expand...
Good summary. The swans for me were the interesting one, I would think internally they would question the need for change in the key forwards, or at least strengthen/backing up their forward line. If the Lions are in a search for a Joe replacement I'd think their need even greater.
 
p4p1 said:
FB Starcevich Andrews Payne
HB Zorko Lester Coleman
C Clugg Neale Berry
HF Rayner Hipwood Ah Chee
FF Cameron Morris Lohman
Foll McInerny Dunkley W Ashcroft
Int L Ashcroft Willmot Fletcher Bailey
Sub McCarthy

Trying to come up with a 2025 team and I don't see where Day fits other than backup. It is one of the bolded guys that would come out for Day or any other tall forward and I don't see based on history, both recent and past any of those guys coming out without an injury for a third tall. I know previously it has been our preferred method, though when Gunston was injured we played with two.

Hippy could play some ruck, I did notice he did a small amount in the GF. We obviously need some KPF cover though so Day makes sense.
Click to expand...
I feel as though next season we will learn a lot about the difference between "our best team" and "our best 23 players". I think there is a difference and the 23 listed here emphasises this. We'll probably be able to get away with this structure against some teams, but for others we will need a more heavy duty forward line with an extra tall, whoever that is.

In any case, there are always injuries and those by themselves I'm sure will dictate that this team rarely if ever makes it out onto the field.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

dlanod said:
Going to get an A+ at the draft though. :D
Click to expand...
It really is a bit silly from the various Footy commentators to rate the Trade period on its own. Trade and Draft is how it should be judged and clearly Brisbane look as if our rating should be an 'A' having won the grand final and still getting 2 picks in the first round (possibly) then there are the teams that traded players in and got out of the draft and those players ultimately make no difference. Maybe the best time to judge in mid-season or even end of season. If Levi Ashcroft wins the rising star, say Day kicks 40 odd goals, and Marshall get 6 brownlow votes you would say great Trade/Draft period. If Hawthorne and Collingwood don't move on the ladder you would say they had a c- Trade/Draft. Someone like West Coast we may not even judge them on the coming year in the Trade/Draft but wait to see what happens in next years trade period.
 
Pride of lions said:
It is really interesting to hear the VIC media pundits talking about the Lions now. Six weeks ago we couldn’t win the flag because Daniher was unreliable, couldn’t be trusted,didn’t provide enough effort etc etc. Now the narrative is that he was our best player and we can’t win it without him. And apparently Collingwood are going to be the team to beat because they have brought in a back flanker who is going to carry them to the top. The BS they spout is incredible.
Click to expand...
Just the way we like it.
 
Seems clubs are starting to delist/renew their fringe OOC players today. I wonder if the Lions will announce anything
 
The players searching for new homes as Saint has medical at Pies

Most clubs, like Brisbane, are expected to wait until after the 2024 Telstra AFL Draft to assess what spots are left on their lists before looking to secure a player in the Rookie Draft or during the pre-season supplemental selection period (SSP).
The Lions are considering ex-Gold Coast key forward Sam Day – along with a handful of other options – to help cover the loss of Joe Daniher after his shock retirement.
...
Essendon has also openly been in the market for a recycled player and have held interest in West Coast's Josh Rotham and Brisbane's Jaxon Prior. Both are yet to re-sign at their current clubs.
Click to expand...
 
The "C" rating from Foxsports is probably about right.
However, the reason they gave for the "C" is a little strange.
The rating was supposed to be for trade period. But they included Jo.
I am sure if he was traded instead of retiring our rating may have changed.
Then Day was included but that has not happened yet.

The only trade was Sharp with no players in.
Sure, we increased our points for the national draft but that should be how we get rated in the national draft
................................................................
BRISBANE LIONS

Who left: Harry Sharp
Who arrived: Nil.
Draft picks owned: 27, 34, 42, 43, 49, 60, 66

Jon Ralph says: “It was a great trade period – apart from losing their best player (Joe Daniher to retirement). Sam Day is not Joe Daniher, but he plays in that same system – a key forward who can crash packs and also play some second ruck. My understanding is he’s the delisted free agent they’ll choose.”
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Section 5 said:
The "C" rating from Foxsports is probably about right.
However, the reason they gave for the "C" is a little strange.
The rating was supposed to be for trade period. But they included Jo.
I am sure if he was traded instead of retiring our rating may have changed.
Then Day was included but that has not happened yet.

The only trade was Sharp with no players in.
Sure, we increased our points for the national draft but that should be how we get rated in the national draft
................................................................
BRISBANE LIONS

Who left: Harry Sharp
Who arrived: Nil.
Draft picks owned: 27, 34, 42, 43, 49, 60, 66

Jon Ralph says: “It was a great trade period – apart from losing their best player (Joe Daniher to retirement). Sam Day is not Joe Daniher, but he plays in that same system – a key forward who can crash packs and also play some second ruck. My understanding is he’s the delisted free agent they’ll choose.”
Click to expand...

I reckon it’s harsh purely because in this trade period we went from just under 1000 points to most likely enough to get both Ashcroft and Marshall. It’s just not even mentioned which is really weird.

I’d give it a B-. We had a single day to organise before the window opened after Joe retired and trading for points isn’t considered difficult but we did the latter and at least conjured up a decent depth player.
 
I did a basic analysis of our list by position (midfielders, rucks, small/medium/tall forwards/defenders) to see how much depth we have in each position, to decide who among our out of contract players it's most important to keep. I've listed each player in their best position only. Of course some players can play in multiple positions, but I'll factor that in when addressing depth needs later.

I used the criteria of smalls being 184cm and below, mediums 185-194cm, talls 195cm and above. That does mean Logan Morris and Kai Lohmann are in the same category, but we have to draw lines somewhere.

In contract or incoming (41)
Small defenders - 6 (McKenna, Wilmot, Zorko, Coleman, Answerth, Brain)
Medium defenders - 3 (Starce, Lester, Doedee)
Tall defenders - 5 (Gardiner, Joyce, Andrews, Payne, ZZ)
Midfielders - 12 (Reville, Dev, Clug, Tunstill, Berry, Fletcher, Dunkley, Neale, Torrent, W Ashcroft, L Ashcroft, Marshall)
Pure rucks - 2 (Fort, Big O)
Small forwards - 4 (Ah Chee, Charlie, Linc, Bailey)
Medium forwards - 5 (Rayner, Kai, Morris, Lloyd, McLachlan)
Tall forwards and forward/rucks - 4 (Ryan, Hipwood, Smith, Day)

Out of contract (3)
Medium defenders - 2 (Prior, Beecken)
Small forwards - 1 (Craven)

I'd say the ideal 23 has a primary ruck, 7 defenders, and a total of 15 between midfielders and forwards, including a forward-ruck, so there's adequate depth to cover every part of the field. Let's go with 7 midfielders and 8 forwards.

As for the small/medium/tall split, in defence I'd say 3/2/2 offers maximum flexibility. With forwards, 3/3/2 will be the default at least until Linc is fit again, with either Smith or Day being the second tall after Hippy.

So looking at contracted players only, this is how much we have in depth at full strength:

Small defenders - 3 (covers 100% of best 23)
Medium defenders - 1 (50%)
Tall defenders - 3 (150%)
Midfielders - 5 (71%)
Pure rucks - 1 (100%)
Small forwards - 1 (33%)
Medium forwards - 2 (67%)
Tall forwards and forward/rucks - 2 (100%)

On pure numbers, we're looking sparse for cover in medium defenders, pure rucks and small forwards. By percentage of the best 23 that can be covered like-for-like, medium defenders, small forwards and medium forwards have the least coverage. But we need to consider players who are flexible enough to cover these roles if required (as well as accounting for the fact ZZ isn't useful depth at this point, he's a project player who isn't ready for prime time).

Medium defenders - Gardiner
Pure rucks - Smith
Midfielders - Rayner, Bailey (rotating through)
Small forwards - Kai (he's borderline in this category anyway)
Medium forwards - Ah Chee (has the leap if not the height)

So the real depth cover looks like this:

Small defenders - 100% of best 23
Medium defenders - 100%
Tall defenders - 100%
Midfielders - 100%
Pure rucks - 200%
Small forwards - 67%
Medium forwards - 100%
Tall forwards and forward/rucks - 100%

Ideally, we'd have at least 100% cover everywhere in case of an injury crisis at a specific position (like this season at tall defender when our three best were all injured at one point). So we're pretty set everywhere, except at small forward. And actually our depth there is worse than what I've listed because Linc won't be fit to start the season.

Fortunately, it just so happens we have a small forward who's out of contract that we can re-sign. We'll be fine if we let one of Prior and Beecken go, because we have depth at medium defender. We won't be fine if we let Craven go. We'd have to draft another small forward in that case.

TL;DR - Let's keep Craven for depth.
 
Johnny Bananas said:
I did a basic analysis of our list by position (midfielders, rucks, small/medium/tall forwards/defenders) to see how much depth we have in each position, to decide who among our out of contract players it's most important to keep. I've listed each player in their best position only. Of course some players can play in multiple positions, but I'll factor that in when addressing depth needs later.

I used the criteria of smalls being 184cm and below, mediums 185-194cm, talls 195cm and above. That does mean Logan Morris and Kai Lohmann are in the same category, but we have to draw lines somewhere.

In contract or incoming (41)
Small defenders - 6 (McKenna, Wilmot, Zorko, Coleman, Answerth, Brain)
Medium defenders - 3 (Starce, Lester, Doedee)
Tall defenders - 5 (Gardiner, Joyce, Andrews, Payne, ZZ)
Midfielders - 12 (Reville, Dev, Clug, Tunstill, Berry, Fletcher, Dunkley, Neale, Torrent, W Ashcroft, L Ashcroft, Marshall)
Pure rucks - 2 (Fort, Big O)
Small forwards - 4 (Ah Chee, Charlie, Linc, Bailey)
Medium forwards - 5 (Rayner, Kai, Morris, Lloyd, McLachlan)
Tall forwards and forward/rucks - 4 (Ryan, Hipwood, Smith, Day)

Out of contract (3)
Medium defenders - 2 (Prior, Beecken)
Small forwards - 1 (Craven)

I'd say the ideal 23 has a primary ruck, 7 defenders, and a total of 15 between midfielders and forwards, including a forward-ruck, so there's adequate depth to cover every part of the field. Let's go with 7 midfielders and 8 forwards.

As for the small/medium/tall split, in defence I'd say 3/2/2 offers maximum flexibility. With forwards, 3/3/2 will be the default at least until Linc is fit again, with either Smith or Day being the second tall after Hippy.

So looking at contracted players only, this is how much we have in depth at full strength:

Small defenders - 3 (covers 100% of best 23)
Medium defenders - 1 (50%)
Tall defenders - 3 (150%)
Midfielders - 5 (71%)
Pure rucks - 1 (100%)
Small forwards - 1 (33%)
Medium forwards - 2 (67%)
Tall forwards and forward/rucks - 2 (100%)

On pure numbers, we're looking sparse for cover in medium defenders, pure rucks and small forwards. By percentage of the best 23 that can be covered like-for-like, medium defenders, small forwards and medium forwards have the least coverage. But we need to consider players who are flexible enough to cover these roles if required (as well as accounting for the fact ZZ isn't useful depth at this point, he's a project player who isn't ready for prime time).

Medium defenders - Gardiner
Pure rucks - Smith
Midfielders - Rayner, Bailey (rotating through)
Small forwards - Kai (he's borderline in this category anyway)
Medium forwards - Ah Chee (has the leap if not the height)

So the real depth cover looks like this:

Small defenders - 100% of best 23
Medium defenders - 100%
Tall defenders - 100%
Midfielders - 100%
Pure rucks - 200%
Small forwards - 67%
Medium forwards - 100%
Tall forwards and forward/rucks - 100%

Ideally, we'd have at least 100% cover everywhere in case of an injury crisis at a specific position (like this season at tall defender when our three best were all injured at one point). So we're pretty set everywhere, except at small forward. And actually our depth there is worse than what I've listed because Linc won't be fit to start the season.

Fortunately, it just so happens we have a small forward who's out of contract that we can re-sign. We'll be fine if we let one of Prior and Beecken go, because we have depth at medium defender. We won't be fine if we let Craven go. We'd have to draft another small forward in that case.

TL;DR - Let's keep Craven for depth.
Click to expand...
This is good analysis but the only thing is I would put McLaughlan by your own reckoning as a small forward as he's listed at 181cm on the lions website and the snippets I've seen of him he seems to play like a crumbing player, but i dont watch much ressies.

I think we are more likely to keep Beecken over Craven, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw Coleman or Wilmot play more wing then half back next year. I was big wraps on Brain across the half back line too, but we are definitely stacked back there with quality. Zorko could also be a surprise packet to play as a pure forward pocket again, to help with that small forward issue too and open space up down back.
 
So our options for Joe replacements keep growing. The first lot of delistings generally have the easier cuts. The second lot of delistings often have some list squeeze victims coming in.

Day remains an option.
Nathan Krueger if he can get his body right.
Adam Tomlinson let go by the Dees today. From memory he played some forward/ruck at the Giants a few years back.

Will be interested to see whether any other possible forwards come onto the wires in the next few days.
 
spotthedog1 said:
So our options for Joe replacements keep growing. The first lot of delistings generally have the easier cuts. The second lot of delistings often have some list squeeze victims coming in.

Day remains an option.
Nathan Krueger if he can get his body right.
Adam Tomlinson let go by the Dees today. From memory he played some forward/ruck at the Giants a few years back.

Will be interested to see whether any other possible forwards come onto the wires in the next few days.
Click to expand...
Jack Hayes??
 
spotthedog1 said:
So our options for Joe replacements keep growing. The first lot of delistings generally have the easier cuts. The second lot of delistings often have some list squeeze victims coming in.

Day remains an option.
Nathan Krueger if he can get his body right.
Adam Tomlinson let go by the Dees today. From memory he played some forward/ruck at the Giants a few years back.

Will be interested to see whether any other possible forwards come onto the wires in the next few days.
Click to expand...
Stick with Day out of those names please 🙏
 
Brizzys Squizzy said:
Jack Hayes??
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, still uncontracted with St Kilda. So depends whether they delist him.

A few defenders around... but we already have a glut of defenders. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if with Payne, Harris, Gardiner, Doedee, Lester all best 22 quality... one of them doesn't volunteer to shift.

Otherwise, Jack Hayes... footy wire says Rhys Stanley is still uncontracted. Alex Keath, Denver Grainger Barrass... Sam Weideman... options for DFAs could grow soon.
 
Dalions said:
Stick with Day out of those names please 🙏
Click to expand...
I'll trust the club when looking at the injury concerns. I obviously don't have access to Day or Krueger's medical records to make any call at all.

We have had success bringing injury prone guys up from the cold winters of Melbourne. But the Pies have the money to throw around, so who knows about Krueger, and Gold Coast are up here, but I'd back our medicos over theirs. So I don't know.
 
buttermuffs said:
I reckon it’s harsh purely because in this trade period we went from just under 1000 points to most likely enough to get both Ashcroft and Marshall. It’s just not even mentioned which is really weird.

I’d give it a B-. We had a single day to organise before the window opened after Joe retired and trading for points isn’t considered difficult but we did the latter and at least conjured up a decent depth player.
Click to expand...
buttermuffs, we have not got that depth player yet and not sure what is happening to Prior.

Regarding ratings i look at things differently.
I don't think you can count pick swaps in the trade period and also consider that again when the draft comes around.
You can't count the same thing twice in my view.

Trade period for me is just that, who you trade out and who you bring in. Is the list better/same/worse.

The draft is purely who you get in the national draft. Did the club do well/average/poorly.
People will rate that at the time as will i, but it is more important how good those players turn out to be after 2/3 years in the system.

At the end of November 2024 i look at who we had on our list in 2023 compared to who we have now.
 
Reader mode

Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. 2024 List Management discussion

Similar threads

McIvor
List Mgmt. 2025 List Management Discussion
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Bucking Beads
Bucking Beads
JasRulz63
  • Sticky
List Mgmt. List changes, contract status and key dates - 2024 🏆
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
JasRulz63
JasRulz63
McIvor
Unofficial Preview Lions 2024 B&F Discussion
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
156
Views
6K
McIvor
McIvor
B
Women's Footy Non Lions AFLW discussion 2024
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
127
Views
5K
The Flying Belgian
The Flying Belgian
M Malice
Unofficial Preview Changes & discussion v Demons @ Gabba, Round 16, 2024..
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
buttermuffs
buttermuffs
MSB ROYS
Women's Footy Lions AFLW 2024 (Season 9) Discussion
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
197
Views
17K
Grasshopper17
G
Jivlain
Non Lions Discussion 2024
305 306 307 308 309
Replies
8K
Views
252K
BrainOfMorbius
B
Back
Top