List Mgmt. 2025 List Mismanagement and Trading

[Scorpus]

I posted on this a few weeks ago. None of the most successful rebuilding clubs played the kids at the expense of the (limited number of) veterans on their list. That approach led to premierships.

Play the best team you have, develop the kids as dominant players in the 2's and the better of them get games in the 1's when they earn them.

Right but you also said they had not that many senior players on the list, so there weren't many opportunities to actually play senior players at the expense of kids

In 2021 we had 8 players that were 29 or older, though admittedly Talia and Gibbs didn't play a single game

 

[Big Dub]

No what I asked is if they played cooked veterans?

There’s a big difference between playing a performing veteran like Luke Hodge, Burgoyne, Pendlebury and a cooked Sloane and Smith.

Without knowing who the players were the stats mean nothing.

Tier 1: Crouch, ANB, Tex, ROB (no other rucks), Laird
Tier 2: Strachan, Burgess, Smith

Other teams didn't have a tier 2. On average, they had one less than us in tier 1.

I think that probably answers your question. They played decent veterans, but not spuds.

 

[Big Dub]

Right but you also said they had not that many senior players on the list, so there weren't many opportunities to actually play senior players at the expense of kids

In 2021 we had 8 players that were 29 or older, though admittedly Talia and Gibbs didn't play a single game

We still do. If we halved that, there would be no way to play them. As it is, we absolutely give games to 5 veterans, and maybe six (Smith).

We also have less kids.

But the theory still stands. We give games to those that earn them. We don't play kids who haven't earned them and we SHOULDN'T give games to older players that no longer deserve them.

 

[George Kramer]

Tier 1: Crouch, ANB, Tex, ROB (no other rucks), Laird
Tier 2: Strachan, Burgess, Smith

Other teams didn't have a tier 2. On average, they had one less than us in tier 1.

I think that probably answers your question. They played decent veterans, but not spuds.

Make tier 2 a tier 4 and you’re getting close.

So in essence they’ve got good veterans, why didn’t you make that point clear?

 

[Big Dub]

This is an interesting post - can you explain more about who would be your best 22, based on precedent?

I only looked at games played, rather than best 22, so it's not as exciting as you'd think.

We should have 4 veterans and all would play. There have been up to 6 veterans for successful teams, and they pretty much all played. We've got 8, and I'd see 6 of them playing. Smith, Strachan and Burgess shouldn't play, but Smith probably will because he's there. Which is why he shouldn't be there.

All but one prime players should play. I'm picking Schoenberg not to play.

We have the right amount of sub-prime players, and all but 2 of those should play. My bet is Gallagher and Turray don't play. But it would be interesting if Turray got a game - do we have a season long injury or does one of Borlase, Taylor or Bond miss out?

We should have 14 kids and only 7.4 should get games. But we only have 5 kids. But they are mostly "first round" picks (if you believe pick 27 is a first round pick), so arguably all of the first round kids should play by their second year. So only Welsh misses out.

So we would play 36 players and they should be:

Backs/ wings (9 starting spots): Hinge, Keane, Worrell, Cumming, Max, Sholl, Murray, Nank, Laird, Milera, Jones, Butts, Bond, Borlase, Edwards, Ryan
Ruck (1): ROB
Mids/ Fwd mids (8): Rankine, Dawson, Soligo, Crouch, Peatling, ANB, Rachele, Draper, Curtin, Taylor, Dowling, Berry
Fwds (4): Walker, Thilthorpe, Fog, ANB, Pedlar, Cook, Murphy

 

[Big Dub]

Make tier 2 a tier 4 and you’re getting close.

So in essence they’ve got good veterans, why didn’t you make that point clear?

Tier 2 is "should have been delisted", so I'm not sure there's a lower tier required. While all of tier 1 isn't great now, it's pretty much on par with the successful rebuild teams.

I didn't make that point clear earlier, because I understood the original post to be lamenting not "playing the kids" at the expense of performing veterans. adelaidecrows has since clarified that he was complaining that we weren't replacing underperforming players with players performing in the 2's. Which I completely agree with.

So, as surprising as it seems, I think that we are all in agreement here?

 

[Mostyn]

I only looked at games played, rather than best 22, so it's not as exciting as you'd think.

We should have 4 veterans and all would play. There have been up to 6 veterans for successful teams, and they pretty much all played. We've got 8, and I'd see 6 of them playing. Smith, Strachan and Burgess shouldn't play, but Smith probably will because he's there. Which is why he shouldn't be there.

All but one prime players should play. I'm picking Schoenberg not to play.

We have the right amount of sub-prime players, and all but 2 of those should play. My bet is Gallagher and Turray don't play. But it would be interesting if Turray got a game - do we have a season long injury or does one of Borlase, Taylor or Bond miss out?

We should have 14 kids and only 7.4 should get games. But we only have 5 kids. But they are mostly "first round" picks (if you believe pick 27 is a first round pick), so arguably all of the first round kids should play by their second year. So only Welsh misses out.

So we would play 36 players and they should be:

Backs/ wings (9 starting spots): Hinge, Keane, Worrell, Cumming, Max, Sholl, Murray, Nank, Laird, Milera, Jones, Butts, Bond, Borlase, Edwards, Ryan
Ruck (1): ROB
Mids/ Fwd mids (8): Rankine, Dawson, Soligo, Crouch, Peatling, ANB, Rachele, Draper, Curtin, Taylor, Dowling, Berry
Fwds (4): Walker, Thilthorpe, Fog, ANB, Pedlar, Cook, Murphy

When you say kids, what's the cut off?

For me, anyone 21 and under is probably a kid, but I think I'm being too generous by your criteria?

 

[Big Dub]

When you say kids, what's the cut off?

For me, anyone 21 and under is probably a kid, but I think I'm being too generous by your criteria?

Kids just 19 or 20, sub prime 20 to 23, prime 24 to 28, veteran 29+.

Some science to it, but mainly it reduced a lot of the variability of the results to be able to understand trends.

 

[Crouch#44]

Was he with Ricciuto...

No, just kicking it at Urbrea HS

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Right but you also said they had not that many senior players on the list, so there weren't many opportunities to actually play senior players at the expense of kids

In 2021 we had 8 players that were 29 or older, though admittedly Talia and Gibbs didn't play a single game

We haven’t got many old senior players

But someone like smith shouldn’t play unless there’s an emergency

And Laird should be a more peripheral role in 2025

 

[spenze]

We haven’t got many old senior players

But someone like smith shouldn’t play unless there’s an emergency

And Laird should be a more peripheral role in 2025

Runner?

 

[Mostyn]

Kids just 19 or 20, sub prime 20 to 23, prime 24 to 28, veteran 29+.

Some science to it, but mainly it reduced a lot of the variability of the results to be able to understand trends.

Interesting. As an exercise, I probably would have had it as -

Kids - 19/20/21
Sub Prime - 22/23/24
Prime - 25/26/27/28/29
Veteran - 30/31/32+

 

[Big Dub]

Interesting. As an exercise, I probably would have had it as -

Kids - 19/20/21
Sub Prime - 22/23/24
Prime - 25/26/27/28/29
Veteran - 30/31/32+

Yeah, just as valid a split. The main reasons I went with the split I did were:

1. it created roughly equal numbers for the first three groups (14 kids, 13.9 sub-prime and 13.5 prime averages for Successful Rebuilds)
2. kids generally get an initial 2 year contract, and there is a big fall away in numbers for year 3, which makes comparisons slightly tricky for that third year v the first two
3. I believe that 19 to 23 is the ages that footballers improve the most, but it's too big a gap to not split it somewhere
4. I also believe that 24 to 28 is the ages that footballers are at their best but with no significant improvements for most (ie stable) and players deteriorate from 29, which kind of set these two age categories for me. Although noting talls take a bit longer to get to their prime, but stay longer once they get there.

 

[Cleric]

Priority 1. Ruck.
Priority 2. Dyson Sharp.
Priority 3. Tall forward/ruck position

 

[Crow till I die]

Priority 1. Ruck.
Priority 2. Dyson Sharp.
Priority 3. Tall forward/ruck position

Tbh..if we were a chance to get any of the 3, i am going dyson sharpe 1, 2 and 3 and will live with a journeyman ruck and stay happy with Thilthorpe and T Murray as the tall forward, chop out ruk options

 

[1990crow]

Tbh..if we were a chance to get any of the 3, i am going dyson sharpe 1, 2 and 3 and will live with a journeyman ruck and stay happy with Thilthorpe and T Murray as the tall forward, chop out ruk options

Maybe in the long term, but the list is actually a lot closer than when Sharp would start to impact games - 2028ish.

I'd hope to start contending in 2026. And a decent ruck for that season would be good.
Wanganeen-Milera and a ruck would put us right into the window.

 

[Cromulant]

A different ruck isn't going to be the difference between contending or not.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

A different ruck isn't going to be the difference between contending or not.

Our biggest issue is coaching.

Hopefully Davis makes the difference!

 

[Cromulant]

Our biggest issue is coaching.

Hopefully Davis makes the difference!

Im confident he makes a difference, i also rate Hombsch highly and it'll be good for Davis to help him along.

Let's see if that's enough

 

[Caputo]

Priority 1. Ruck.
Priority 2. Dyson Sharp.
Priority 3. Tall forward/ruck position

No to Dyson Sharp because it means we would be worse than this year.

 

[adelaidecrows]

No to Dyson Sharp because it means we would be worse than this year.

Maybe we can ask Dyson to join our SANFL team and tank his draft season hardcore. Play him FB all year rotating off the bench.

On CPH2371 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Eddie Murphy]

A different ruck isn't going to be the difference between contending or not.

The issue isn’t exactly ROB himself. It’s that we have no genuine ruck competition to hold ROB accountable to form.

 

[hugecannon]

The issue isn’t exactly ROB himself. It’s that we have no genuine ruck competition to hold ROB accountable to form.

Or if he gets injured and misses multiple games we have no one else who can carry the work load, as Strahan can’t even run out a full game and Murray is untested as a first ruck.

 

[Cleric]

No to Dyson Sharp because it means we would be worse than this year.

The SA and Academy kids always fall back as the year goes on.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The SA and Academy kids always fall back as the year goes on.

Yep, I think we're a good chance to get Sharp

As you said, the SA kids tend to slide during their draft year. And our 1st round pick usually ends up much earlier than we thought.

The twain shall meet