List Mgmt. 2024 List Mismanagement and Trading

[BucketsNj]

I'm sorry, but this is just garbage. We used 39 players this year, so it's not as if we haven't been handing out opportunities like lollipops.

For point of comparison, here's how many players teams have used this year:
42 - Richmond
39 - Adelaide, West Coast, North Melbourne
38 - St Kilda, Gold Coast
37 - Brisbane, Carlton, Collingwood
36 - Fremantle, Melbourne
35 - Geelong, Western Bulldogs, Essendon
34 - Port Adelaide, GWS, Hawthorn
31 - Sydney

Only Richmond have used more players. Even Carlton, which currently has almost a full team on their injury list, have used fewer players than Adelaide.

The only players who haven't played an AFL game this year are:
Sloane - retired
Edwards - 1st year player
Ryan - 1st year player
Gallagher - 1st year player, Cat B rookie
T Murray - 1st year MSD selection

Thank you. It's a relief to get a realistic perspective, rather than 'The Club is ****ed and the coach is ****ed and everything is ****ed.'

 

[BucketsNj]

You're missing the point. They played them no matter what.
Worrell and Nankervis are two players that come to mind that should have at least 20 more games under their belts. We refused to play them unless they fitted this "experience" formula.

It's gotten us nowhere. Good clubs get games into players they think could be in a top 4 quality side team.

This is the myth, but it's not true as far as Worrell is concerned. He's said himself that he wasn't ready.

 

[tinman]

Hawks ended up with a younger team than us.

We have had at least as many experienced players in our rebuild & have traded in more valuable players than them... including our best 2 players.

The suggestion Hawks are better than us because of their experienced players is a nonsense.

They are better than us because they got games into their best young talent quicker than us.

Agreed, but they’re also better coached than us. They run hard and move the ball faster than we do.

We’re capable of it, and do it at times, but they are far more consistent with it.

My eyes still hurt from watching us for the first 4 rounds this year where our ball movement was glacial. We effectively nullified our strength which was our highly potent forward line. It was absolute stupidity, and that’s 100% on the coaches.

 

[rabidcrow]

That’s because we should trade / delist some and add one or 2 experienced ones from other clubs

But we are too weak a club to make tough calls

Last off season was a disaster. Hopefully this year we bring in at least 3 established players from other clubs


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[GreyCrow]

Last off season was a disaster. Hopefully this year we bring in at least 3 established players from other clubs

Given the noise I think we do this much easily than last season

 

[Mutineer]

Players of less value & older have been traded plenty of times... so yes it is possible.

Career SA players at his age to interstate clubs?

Who?

 

[dogs105]

Career SA players at his age to interstate clubs?

Who?

Mods was a year younger, and shouldn't have been traded.

 

[Scorpus]

Well, no. We needed experience around those players back then, just as we do today. The difference is that 5 years ago our veterans were still capable of performing this role - today, they're not.

What makes you think our veterans were capable of performing a role 5 years ago?

We lost 14 games in a row and finished last. Doesn't really suggest they were playing a role at all

 

[Mutineer]

Mods was a year younger, and shouldn't have been traded.

I wasn't talking going back into the archives...

 

[dogs105]

I wasn't talking going back into the archives...

I was trying to agree with you, but I'm a bit drunk...

 

[Vader]

You're missing the point. They played them no matter what.
Worrell and Nankervis are two players that come to mind that should have at least 20 more games under their belts. We refused to play them unless they fitted this "experience" formula.

I'm sorry, but that's just garbage. Worrell himself has said that he wasn't ready. I can buy that they might be 5 games short of where they could be, but 20 is just a rubbish claim.

It's gotten us nowhere. Good clubs get games into players they think could be in a top 4 quality side team.

A - We have been getting games into our youngsters. The evidence for this is that we've consistently had the 1st or 2nd youngest & least experienced teams for the last 5 years. The facts simply don't support any other hypothesis.

B - We haven't been holding back any player likely to be a gun. You can argue that some mediocre youngsters could have had more chances, if a mediocre slightly older player was forced out, but you can't make that argument for our gun youngsters.

 

[Vader]

Ah, so Hawthorn is a year behind us in their rebuild. Alrrrrrrriiiiiggggght…….

FFS

 

[Vader]

What makes you think our veterans were capable of performing a role 5 years ago?

We lost 14 games in a row and finished last. Doesn't really suggest they were playing a role at all

There's only so much they could do when we're fielding 14 players with less than 50 games experience, roughly half of which had played less than 10 games. That's what our teams looked like back in 2020, or have you forgotten?

Very few teams are going to win many games when they're effectively playing 10 men vs 22.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I'm sorry, but that's just garbage. Worrell himself has said that he wasn't ready. I can buy that they might be 5 games short of where they could be, but 20 is just a rubbish claim.

A - We have been getting games into our youngsters. The evidence for this is that we've consistently had the 1st or 2nd youngest & least experienced teams for the last 5 years. The facts simply don't support any other hypothesis.

B - We haven't been holding back any player likely to be a gun. You can argue that some mediocre youngsters could have had more chances, if a mediocre slightly older player was forced out, but you can't make that argument for our gun youngsters.

Given how Nankervis finished last season, he should have started from round 1 this year.

Worrell should have come in when Doedee was playing injured.

Both should have played many more games.

Same with Curtin this year.
.
Ryan should have debuted during the season when he was in form.

A proper rebuild prioritising young talent... but heck we prefer to play an out of form Smith for most of the year & a very average Murphy.

Compare to Hawks & look at how many games their young players have played & ask yourself why are they now ahead of us?

 

[Scorpus]

There's only so much they could do when we're fielding 14 players with less than 50 games experience, roughly half of which had played less than 10 games. That's what our teams looked like back in 2020, or have you forgotten?

Very few teams are going to win many games when they're effectively playing 10 men vs 22.

Right so they didn't exactly help then.

Would have gone just as badly without them back then (can't finish below last) and despite their influence "helping" our youth, we've ascended the ladder to the mighty position of 15th

 

[CharlieCrow]

What's the answer to these last pages of back and forth?
So, is it drafting? It sure missed the mark a few years ago but the last couple have been pretty good. And we seem to have an uncanny knack with the rookie list.

So is it recruitment?
Sure our trading hasn't been perfect with some targets not wanting to come here. But Rankine, Dawson, Hinge and Keays have all worked out.

So, is it youth management? The timing has been a bit clunky with some oldies playing too long and some youngsters waiting too long - perhaps. Most seem to be coming along nicely. We may not all agree on the timing.

So, is it mature age player management? You have to have some older players out there. No-one can question the continued inclusion of Walker and Crouch - after a hiccup. But some have fallen off the cliff rather unexpectedly - Laird, Smith, and then there's the unfathomable continued selection of Murphy and to a lesser degree Sloane.

So, is it injury management? Who could have predicted Milera and Pedlar? And the bullet we dodged with Doedee. Especially with a structure led by the fitness guru.

So, is it the coaching? Most of us would say yes, but it can't be just about them given all of the questions raised above. I don't think anyone would disagree with a tweak! I would like to see Nicks moved on, but I'm not sure who would come here. The fact that we ended up with Nicks is an example of that. He is rather like Ken - the last man standing.

Last of all, is it the administration? I think that most of would also say yes. The whole thing is sounding the same as Essendon, Collingwood, Hawthorn and Carlton, stick with Dodoro, McGuire, Kennet and John Elliott - old farts with misguided moral authority. Even Koch knew when his time was up! Perhaps we can start there and have a bit of trickle down improvement. We can't change the past but we can we can make our future.

 

[adelaidecrows]

You mean not letting the BF Cartel get their hands on shiny new toys, before the toys are ready to be played with?

Putting games into duds - Murphy being the prime (and almost only) example - can be justified on the basis of a lack of alternatives. We simply don't have anyone with whom to replace him. I really wish we did, but the fact is that we don't. This is why the recruitment of ANB is so important (infinitely more important than Luko).

Cmon Vader, you know full well what we are arguing about. Our full best 22 is as good as many teams, Nicks poor planning and development was exposed and we had a lot of inexperience come in at once. Something he could have prepared better for by putting games into other players last year.

And again we would all agree with not putting players in before they are ready. But Nicks said he had no plans on playing the kids, they werent ready but yet proved to be better than many of our senior players. And the critique around Curtin treatment was just.

Everyone has good points in a year like this. Its all in context though and blindly following useless stats like youngest and least experience means little.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Right so they didn't exactly help then.

Would have gone just as badly without them back then (can't finish below last) and despite their influence "helping" our youth, we've ascended the ladder to the mighty position of 15th

youngest average and least experienced stats are useless but fodder for happy clappers who have nothing else to hold onto.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Given how Nankervis finished last season, he should have started from round 1 this year.

Worrell should have come in when Doedee was playing injured.

Both should have played many more games.

Same with Curtin this year.
.
Ryan should have debuted during the season when he was in form.

A proper rebuild prioritising young talent... but heck we prefer to play an out of form Smith for most of the year & a very average Murphy.

Compare to Hawks & look at how many games their young players have played & ask yourself why are they now ahead of us?

Add Taylor too to the list of class players we should have got more games into.

 

[Doctor B]

We weren't the youngest team in 2020, we were the 6th youngest team for players used 25.1 and 6th least experienced 82.3 games

Sydney were the second youngest team 24.4 years 76.1 games

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Add Taylor too to the list of class players we should have got more games into.

Very good player of the future .....clean hands, and thinks well under pressure

 

[Vader]

Conceptually, what's happened this year - and the reason why we've gone backwards - can be shown in the following graph:


In 2020, we were getting SFA from our youngsters, and everything was reliant on our veterans.

The output of our youngsters has improved every year, while the output from our veterans remained roughly constant up to 2023.

In 2024 the output from our veterans has fallen off a cliff. The output from the kids has improved significantly, but not enough to cover the veterans' fall from grace. The cumulative result of which is the team going backwards in 2024.

The graph is only intended to demonstrate the concept. Please don't try to put hard numbers to it.

 

[GreyCrow]

So instead of watching the game you made a graph

 

[Vader]

So instead of watching the game you made a graph

It took me about 2 minutes, while Sydney were playing kick to kick in the 4th quarter. Making the graph was arguably a better use of my time than watching the Swans playing out junk time.

Do you have any comment about what the graph shows? Do you agree/disagree with it? Do you understand it?

 

[GreyCrow]

Do you have any comment about what the graph shows? Do you agree/disagree with it? Do you understand it?

No. You refuse to put the hard numbers

It has no context