Delistings - the unlucky 4

[cammo6556]

Some informed posters spread rumour of a poor attitude, and a failure to keep himself fit/healthy this year. He does seem quite lucky.

yeah fair enough... always seemed to have talent... i see this year being very important for petrenko... seems that he doesnt have enough belief in himself to play afl... if he fails to play much this year it may break him

 

[relapse]

2006 was a poor draft, go and take a look at it on Footywire - we took those 2 mature age picks very late, after other teams had started passing.

Once again, tell me who exactly should have gotten a game ahead of Torney? Go on, pick one of the youngsters above whose development was stunted and tell me which one deserved to be in our best 22 ahead of Jason Torney? That's right, none of them. You know why? The ones who earned it already had their spot. Vince and Douglas were in and out of the side for very good reasons, namely Vince's horrid fitness base and work ethic, and Douglas' trademark inconsistency. The others rarely staked a claim via the SANFL, and didn't hold onto the chance when they got it, before being delisted at the end of 2007.

Do you actually believe what you are saying? Honestly? Because I cannot believe how any intelligent person can stand there and seriously argue that yellow is purple, outside of a psychology lecture.

and I think it is ironic that you mention intelligence yet go on to confuse your own opinion with fact.

Opinions are speculative often without any real measure to determine anything factual and in this instance all we can do is argue hypothetical outcomes.

Your analogy over something factual ie colour or number has no relevance at all, your analogy is implying that your opinion is fact and that I am trying to argue against something factual.

 

[My_Man_Danger]

yeah fair enough... always seemed to have talent... i see this year being very important for petrenko... seems that he doesnt have enough belief in himself to play afl... if he fails to play much this year it may break him

He is not doing much playing for the Eagles (struggling to make their league side). He has been very disappointing so far .

 

[relapse]

I am quite (extremely) sure the delistings will be Shirley, Gill & Gallman. Gallman to be picked up in the draft (perhaps?). Jacky is very, very, very lucky to stay on the list. Unless sentiment changes I think you will find that is what will transpire.

Interesting, I am sure there will be 4th though. I just cannot see us only drafting two players especially with the compromised drafts coming up.

 

[cammo6556]

He is not doing much playing for the Eagles (struggling to make the league side). He has been very disappointing so far .

seems a bit unfair... we have a few kids who seem good enough to warrant a game but after that, there is a few disappointments. still holding out for petrenko and armstrong but the clock is ticking.

 

[relapse]

He is not doing much playing for the Eagles (struggling to make their league side). He has been very disappointing so far .

I agree, it's a shame because the AFC really talked him up after we drafted him. Sadly it seems as though he has a long long way to go before I can see him getting a regular game, I think there is more chance of him continuing to disappoint and getting delisted in the next couple of years rather than becoming a future first 22 player for us.

 

[NTRabbit]

and I think it is ironic that you mention intelligence yet go on to confuse your own opinion with fact.

Opinions are speculative often without any real measure to determine anything factual and in this instance all we can do is argue hypothetical outcomes.

Your analogy over something factual ie colour or number has no relevance at all, your analogy is implying that your opinion is fact and that I am trying to argue against something factual.

If you had ever posted anything remotely close to a fact, I might be worried.

Actually, no I wouldn't, because so far 90% of what I have posted is cold hard fact, and the rest is inference.

But, since you post nothing but your own fears - your month of panic riddled and reactionary posts started when we lost to Collingwood, and were intensified when you were ridiculously suckered in by a laughable rumour about Taylor Walker being trade bait and an Essendon target -, incorrect assumptions and misguided opinions, despite efforts to educate you to the contrary, there's little else to be said.

 

[Crow-mo]

I have a different take on this.

you have a different on something I don't know?

 

[Crow-mo]

That we did not develop our list in 2007 is a myth.

I don't think your evidence quite supports your conclusion.

 

[Crow-mo]

2006 was a poor draft, go and take a look at it on Footywire - we took those 2 mature age picks very late, after other teams had started passing.

2006 was hailed at the time as perhaps the best draft ever.

 

[NTRabbit]

I don't think your evidence quite supports your conclusion.

I do. I'm not seeing how it doesn't.

2006 was hailed at the time as perhaps the best draft ever.

I'm not seeing anything better going around the picks we got Gill and Campbell, save for David Rodan - another mature/recycle - and Jesse White of the Swans.

At the time, we had three key forward prospects on our list, one was still years away from even being certain he would ever play again, one was the ever popular Scott Stevens, and the other turned into an AA CHB. Taking Nick Gill as mature aged allowed us to have some cover for the two young ones we grabbed earlier in the draft - then when they needed covering, he managed to miss most of the season through injury himself anyway.

Anyone think Scott Welsh was stealing a spot from Jericho?

Campbell, well he was what, the same age as Vince was when we took him? Didn't work out, didn't really steal a place from anyone.

 

[jackster83]

yeah fair enough... always seemed to have talent... i see this year being very important for petrenko... seems that he doesnt have enough belief in himself to play afl... if he fails to play much this year it may break him

Did you mean to say Jacky?

Petrenko is coming along just fine thank you.

 

[relapse]

If you had ever posted anything remotely close to a fact, I might be worried.

Actually, no I wouldn't, because so far 90% of what I have posted is cold hard fact, and the rest is inference.

But, since you post nothing but your own fears - your month of panic riddled and reactionary posts started when we lost to Collingwood, and were intensified when you were ridiculously suckered in by a laughable rumour about Taylor Walker being trade bait and an Essendon target -, incorrect assumptions and misguided opinions, despite efforts to educate you to the contrary, there's little else to be said.

I posted my concerns on Shirley and Burton playing long before the Collingwood result. My reaction justified my concern going into the game, yet people (might have even been you) told me that “I had no idea and that Craig was making the correct decision to win the flag”, we all saw how that turned out.

If Shirley is delisted this week what did playing him achieve in the long term for us? Lets not also forget that Douglas performed reasonably well against Essendon and was dropped to make way for Shirley. Playing Shirley essentially was a short term decision and in retrospect offered no reward, at least Douglas would now have that experience under his belt which he has now missed out on. We made the mistake of overrating our list going into September chasing an unwinnable premiership and brought players like Shirley in that added nothing to our side.

As for Walker I wasn’t suckered in, I think that we should have shown more faith in Walker this year. I was disappointed that other clubs were looking at him as potential trade bait which would have been due to the way he was dumped back to the SANFL like yesterdays news once Burton and Hentschel came back into the side. The interest by those clubs in way showed that other clubs felt he was potentially not appreciated or rated as much at our club as he possibly should/could be.

Unlike some I don’t think good list management is thinking Goodwin should continue for at least 2 more years (also continuing as captain) and saying that Burton should be retained for 3 more years Burton is not and was never an elite player, maybe we should try and draft Russell Robertson as well.(surely Melbourne must have been off their rocker getting rid of a 30 year old forward and would clearly have 5-6 years left in him).

You methodology of list management is straight out of the Gary Ayres play book. Focussing everything into your senior players and leaving the developing players in the SANFL system. The developing players are given no AFL game time and no opportunity to develop at a senior level and expecting them to become elite players before even contemplating the notion putting them in the side.

The over reliance on the SANFL system to produce AFL standard players doubled with Ayres continually cutting from the bottom of our list at the end of each year is the reason why we currently have a black hole in our list. You might believe that we need to commit 100 percent to playing the senior players regardless of whether we can win a flag or not and that a youngster needs to supercede a 30+ year old player by solely playing in the SANFL before being considered, but Ayres has already shown that this style of development doesn’t work. Rutten would have joined the list of players that were victims of the Ayres’ development system. If Craigy not taken over, he was on the list to be delisted at the end of 2004 and who knows how many other diamonds in the rough sat on our list during the Ayres years and never got an opportunity to grow because Ayres was too focussed on ignoring the future and solely chasing short term results.

 

[relapse]

I do. I'm not seeing how it doesn't.



I'm not seeing anything better going around the picks we got Gill and Campbell, save for David Rodan - another mature/recycle - and Jesse White of the Swans.

At the time, we had three key forward prospects on our list, one was still years away from even being certain he would ever play again, one was the ever popular Scott Stevens, and the other turned into an AA CHB. Taking Nick Gill as mature aged allowed us to have some cover for the two young ones we grabbed earlier in the draft - then when they needed covering, he managed to miss most of the season through injury himself anyway.

Anyone think Scott Welsh was stealing a spot from Jericho?

Campbell, well he was what, the same age as Vince was when we took him? Didn't work out, didn't really steal a place from anyone.

Well we did, because we cut players younger than them in order to draft them.

I do understand Gill getting drafted considering Hentschel had injured his knee in 2006, but the campbell decision was a poor one. The issue remains that the selection of both players was a band aid solution to try and get more life out of our 2006 side. It might have been the time to move some players on for trade etc to try and get higher draft picks to load up our side.

We made some short term decisions in that draft to try and maximise our list in 2007 despite most of us believing that our premiership window had closed (which it had).

 

[NTRabbit]

So you would turf good senior players in order to keep younger ones who are not good enough... because they're old, and they're young?

At the end of 2006 we cut 2 30+ players, a guy who had reached 24/25 and failed to fire one last time, and 2 young players who weren't even going to make it that far.

We replaced them with two desperately needed young KPP's, a classy midfielder, and with late picks well beyond the draft depth we took a very mature coverage KPP and a 21 year old 'speculator' midfielder, with pick #78 in the National Draft. Gibson and Obst were already both failures, Obst failing so rapidly I suspect he had major attitude or go home issues, so replacing them with a guy who might not be, taken that late in the draft, and just a year older than Gibson by the time he was cut, can hardly be called stunting development.

We'd be in a worse position than Fremantle if we followed your theory - a list with no senior bodies, packed with 25 year old list cloggers that we can barely even sell to other clubs for 3rd round picks they're so bad.

 

[Alex99]

So you would turf good senior players in order to keep younger ones who are not good enough... because they're old, and they're young?

At the end of 2006 we cut 2 30+ players, a guy who had reached 24/25 and failed to fire one last time, and 2 young players who weren't even going to make it that far.

We replaced them with two desperately needed young KPP's, a classy midfielder, and with late picks well beyond the draft depth we took a very mature coverage KPP and a 21 year old 'speculator' midfielder.

I'm glad you're just a forum reactionary, because we'd be in a worse position than Fremantle if we followed your theory - a list with no senior bodies, packed with 25 year old list cloggers that we can barely even sell to other clubs for 3rd round picks they're so bad.

Stop being so condescending. If you had your way, we would have a side full of 40 year olds until we lost all 22 games and only until we lost them by well over 20 goals as that side would still be deeded competitive.

 

[NTRabbit]

Stop being so condescending. If you had your way, we would have a side full of 40 year olds until we lost all 22 games and only until we lost them by well over 20 goals as that side would still be deeded competitive.

No, if we had my way we'd have a balanced list of youth, middle aged and senior players, all competing for spots, with list cloggers of all ages moved on when it becomes apparent that is all they are doing, because the best 22 with respect to balance are picked every week, regardless of age.

Your failure to comprehend this simple piece of information is astounding, and that is why I'm being condescending. At least Crow-mo backs himself with reasoned and reasonable arguments, you guys are just flying off the wall with the same repetitive gibberish, and not reading a word anyone else says.

 

[Alex99]

No, if we had my way we'd have a balanced list of youth, middle aged and senior players, all competing for spots, with list cloggers of all ages moved on when it becomes apparent that is all they are doing, because the best 22 with respect to balance are picked every week, regardless of age.

Your failure to comprehend this simple piece of information is astounding, and that is why I'm being condescending. At least Crow-mo backs himself with reasoned and reasonable arguments, you guys are just flying off the wall with the same repetitive gibberish, and not reading a word anyone else says.

Isn't it easy to misinterpreted someone else point of view when you don’t want to see it.

You cannot comprehend where we are coming from, nowhere has anyone said anything about playing all the kids but this is what it always come back to. Someone says, delist a senior guys, so this must mean, play all the kids.

You don’t see our point of view because it differs from your own. That’s why you’re being a condescending ****.

 

[relapse]

The ironic thing is being told that I had "no idea" and was "unintelligent" when I stated my opnion and why I felt the club would delist 5 players and take four players in the draft (but again, I apparently have NFI about list management ) It's a far different outcome than the opinion that the club should only take a minimum 2 draft picks and make a case that Shirley needs to be retained on the list.

The reality is at the end of next year we are going to be losing possibly four to five senior players and we need to get some players on the bottom end our list. This will ensure that we have reasonable sized crop of second year players as one or two of them might have to step up in 2011 to fill a spot on our side. It would be horribly short sighted list management adding only two players and keeping Shirley as it would have placed too added pressure on our list and left ourselves in a position where we would of had little to nothing to rely on in 2011 when spots in our list side may need to be filled.

Under the circumstances of our list it was the right time to move Shirley on. Today's delisting decisions support that the club is working towards building a squad to win a flag rather than just worried about how many games the club can win in 2010

 

[relapse]

No, if we had my way we'd have a balanced list of youth, middle aged and senior players, all competing for spots, with list cloggers of all ages moved on when it becomes apparent that is all they are doing, because the best 22 with respect to balance are picked every week, regardless of age.

Your failure to comprehend this simple piece of information is astounding, and that is why I'm being condescending. At least Crow-mo backs himself with reasoned and reasonable arguments, you guys are just flying off the wall with the same repetitive gibberish, and not reading a word anyone else says.

There is one fundamental flaw though and as I said your list management is straight out of the Gary Ayres 101 handbook, how does one player supercede one player already in the side when the SANFL system will not produce an elite AFL player ??

You fail to comprehend that there needs to be a transitional period and fail to see the difference between where players like Walker are with their development than players like Cooke. There is a gray area with list management and the transition of players into the side. Once a player player reaches a certain level then you need to invest game time into to continue their development. The reality is that you will not make an AFL quality player by ingoring them and leaving them in the SANFL.

Walker (and possibly Davis) are players who have the talent and have grown and developed and need to play to take the next step and are a very different proposition than players like Cooke, Patrenko etc that still need to grow. Players like Walker and Davis are players that now need to be transitioned into AFL football, just like Geelong are doing with Hawkins (and did with Taylor) and Carlton did with Bryce Gibbs.

Your list management theory is that if Walker and Davis who both have tremendous upsides need to play AFL to continue to develop into elite players then that means they wont get picked as they more than likely wont ever be in a position to supercede a current player if they dont ever get any game time.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

There is one fundamental flaw though and as I said your list management is straight out of the Gary Ayres 101 handbook, how does one player supercede one player already in the side when the SANFL system will not produce an elite AFL player ??

You fail to comprehend that there needs to be a transitional period and fail to see the difference between where players like Walker are with their development than players like Cooke. There is a gray area with list management and the transition of players into the side. Once a player player reaches a certain level then you need to invest game time into to continue their development. The reality is that you will not make an AFL quality player by ingoring them and leaving them in the SANFL.

Walker (and possibly Davis) are players who have the talent and have grown and developed and need to play to take the next step and are a very different proposition than players like Cooke, Patrenko etc that still need to grow. Players like Walker and Davis are players that now need to be transitioned into AFL football, just like Geelong are doing with Hawkins (and did with Taylor) and Carlton did with Bryce Gibbs.

Your list management theory is that if Walker and Davis who both have tremendous upsides need to play AFL to continue to develop into elite players then that means they wont get picked as they more than likely wont ever be in a position to supercede a current player if they dont ever get any game time.

OMG relapse give it a break

again your list management theory lacks any real evidence

the AFC provided development scope at AFL level for Danger, Tippett, D-Mac and Otten and even before that with Knights and VB so why would Walker, Davis and SMACK be any different

bottom line is if your good enough you will play AND the club has already demostrated this over the past 2-3 years

stop using the Walker / Burton situation as the basis of your argument, and ignoring the evidence that the club has provided scope for young players to develop at afl level

honestly its starting to get a little boring

 

[Mad Fan of AFL]

I applaud the club for making the tough decisions. Im disappointed with Kite's delisting. Aaron has potential. IT is still hard for me incorporate some more youngsters into next years team to give them more game time and debut some new kids. Even with one or two injuries the team has a similar look about it.

 

[relapse]

OMG relapse give it a break

again your list management theory lacks any real evidence

the AFC provided development scope at AFL level for Danger, Tippett, D-Mac and Otten and even before that with Knights and VB so why would Walker, Davis and SMACK be any different

bottom line is if your good enough you will play AND the club has already demostrated this over the past 2-3 years

stop using the Walker / Burton situation as the basis of your argument, and ignoring the evidence that the club has provided scope for young players to develop at afl level

honestly its starting to get a little boring

That wasn't directed at anything the club has done or is doing, it is based at NTRabbit who gets bent out of shape about my opinion and chooses to reply in a condescending manner. So I just thought I would respond about his list management ideology considering it is apparently far more well informed and more in line with current AFL coaching trends than mine.

I mean who in their right mind would suggest the club deslisting 5 players including Shirley and having 4 draft picks

 

[Crow-mo]

I do. I'm not seeing how it doesn't.

no, it doesn't appear as if you do.

I'm not seeing anything better going around the picks we got Gill and Campbell, save for David Rodan - another mature/recycle - and Jesse White of the Swans.

At the time, we had three key forward prospects on our list, one was still years away from even being certain he would ever play again, one was the ever popular Scott Stevens, and the other turned into an AA CHB. Taking Nick Gill as mature aged allowed us to have some cover for the two young ones we grabbed earlier in the draft - then when they needed covering, he managed to miss most of the season through injury himself anyway.

Anyone think Scott Welsh was stealing a spot from Jericho?

Campbell, well he was what, the same age as Vince was when we took him? Didn't work out, didn't really steal a place from anyone.

exactly what does that have to do with the point you quoted?

no wonder you don't see disconnects between your logic and your conclusions. fact 2006 was considered just about the best draft ever - this is inarguable.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

please tell me you had been drinking when you posted this its as silly as saying danger and otten wont be in the starting line up round 1 next year

Just read it back

Saturday night, 11.43pm. Posts that close to midnight when the poster is clearly drunk, tired and cranky should be inadmissable. Or at least we need some sort of cooling off period.

That's said, what odds Taylor Walker for the Ken Farmer Medal in 2010?