How many years 'down' for the Roos?

[subtle hustle]

How many years do you think the Kangaroos will spend in the bottom 4 due to poor trading and a lack of quality young players coming through?

They've only just begun the rebuild, deciding not to 'top up' again in last years superdraft, and will almost certainly lose the experience of Archer, Simpson, Grant, Thompson in the next 3-5 years.

They do have some kids with talent in Wells, Smith and Swallow, while also having two good young ruckmen, Hale and McIntosh, but IMHO they are destined to stay in the bottom 4 for at least another 3 years while there 2006 draft and onwards get some experience.


edit: This is a public poll. Honest assessment is needed.

 

[The Zebra]

Nah, the Roos are a bit different from most of the other squib clubs in this league. We don't like bottom 4. Haven't for a long time. And we especially don't like bottom 4 in consecutive years.

In fact - over the last 30 years there is only ONE club that hasn't had consecutive bottom 4 finishes.

You know which club that is?

You guessed it- The mighty ********ing Roos.

We tend to fight back.


Expect us to be pushing for finals in 2007.

 

[subtle hustle]

Nah, the Roos are a bit different from most of the other squib clubs in this league. We don't like bottom 4. Haven't for a long time. And we especially don't like bottom 4 in consecutive years.

And you think other clubs do?

 

[The Zebra]

And you think other clubs do?

Seemingly.

 

[CrazyQ]

Nah, the Roos are a bit different from most of the other squib clubs in this league. We don't like bottom 4. Haven't for a long time. And we especially don't like bottom 4 in consecutive years.

In fact - over the last 30 years there is only ONE club that hasn't had consecutive bottom 4 finishes.

You know which club that is?

You guessed it- The mighty ********ing Roos.

We tend to fight back.


Expect us to be pushing for finals in 2007.

But think of the draft picks!

 

[subtle hustle]

Well, whether you like it or not, your club is destined to finish bottom 4 for at least two consecutive years(this year and last year). And I'm still yet to see a club finish bottom 4 because they 'like it'.

If you truly believe your club will rally and compete for a top 8 spot, please enlighten us all and explain where the improvement will come from?

 

[mark73]

And you think other clubs do?

So what are you saying, stupid?

That if people don't agree with your ill informed, poorly researched amateurish troll attempting spittle that it's not a decent reply?

Oh, and remember to recite the glasshouses thing a few times.



*Please let the school holidays end soon.

 

[subtle hustle]

Just the usual 'head in the sand' reply from you mark73, I'd been waiting.

 

[lids2004roar]

I think it may be 4 more years.

The next 2 years are pretty much going to be rebuilding, but after that it could take another two years before they become a threat to the flag.

They need to wait for all their young players to hit the 22-24 year old age before premiership success can be dreamt of.


EDIT: I voted before reading the question, I don't mean they will be in the bottom 4 for at least 4 years but it will be at least 4 years before they can be a threat in the finals. Being "down" IMO is when you can't make a push for the flag.

 

[Sandgroper35]

Depends.
If the club is aiming to just make up the numbers in the 8, probably 1 or 2.
If the club is serious about winning a premiership, we will need 4 years or over.
I am hoping it is the latter and have voted accordingly.

 

[subtle hustle]

So what are you saying, stupid?

That if people don't agree with your ill informed, poorly researched amateurish troll attempting spittle that it's not a decent reply?

Oh, and remember to recite the glasshouses thing a few times.



*Please let the school holidays end soon.

On second thoughts, I'll reply to your barbs.

What am I saying?
I'm saying that just because you feel that your club doesn't want to be down the bottom, doesn;t mean that your list will improve overnight or that you'll automatically climb the ladder. It's that simple.

If my opinion is so ill-informed please tell me why?
Have you got an abundance of talented youth coming through, season players who will improve...anything at all?

Just don't pull out the old "we don't like finishing bottom 4, therefore we won't" pledge.

 

[Smell The Glove]

Expect us to be pushing for finals in 2007.

And yet the 'delusional Roos fan' option remains empty. Go figure.

 

[mark73]

On second thoughts, I'll reply to your barbs.

Hit a nerve did I?

What am I saying?
I'm saying that just because you feel that your club doesn't want to be down the bottom, doesn;t mean that your list will improve overnight or that you'll automatically climb the ladder. It's that simple.

It's that simple is it? There's your poorly researched part coming through.

If my opinion is so ill-informed please tell me why?
Have you got an abundance of talented youth coming through, season players who will improve...anything at all?

The club made an error in judgement regarding a particular staff member and was neglect in adapting to the rule changes that took place over the summer last year, which they've admitted probably 6 or 8 times. People blame Laidley's game plan for our poor season, and to an extent it was his fault but the major issue was the inability to run out a game, which is more to do with fitness than ability, and the fitness advisor has since been turfed and hence the club started it's pre season immediately at seasons end to make up lost ground from the 2006 pre season.

Young players? Smith, McConnell, Trotter, Swallow, Moran, Riggio, Grima, Gibson, Thomas, Hansen, Urquhart, Edwards (with brain in tact), McIntosh should suffice as youngsters I'd imagine. All 22 and under. In fact most are 21 and under.

Hmmm, for improvement from season players we'd be looking at Firrito, Petrie, Pratt, Harris, Wells, Jones, Watt (to come on again), a fit Brown, Hale.

Is that enough of a back up for you?

 

[The Zebra]

If my opinion is so ill-informed please tell me why?

Sure..why not.

Have you got an abundance of talented youth coming through, season

We have a fair chunk. And a lot of them are entering an age where theY should be starting to put in more consistently good performances

Wells (21): Has imporved every year. had a good 2006, and rounded himself out with his hardness. Has also become an onfield leader. Needs to now let himself go and become more selfish and take games apart more often. He will be very good in 2007.

Petrie (24): Moved to CHB mid-year and his form was as good as any CHB in the competition. Beat his opponent, zoned off his man, and got plenty of it. From round 12 (when he was moved back) averaged 16.6 disposals, 7 marks, 1.8 tackles and 4.3 rebound 50s. If he maintains that form for a whole year he will be right in AA CHB contention. Massive find in a bad year.

Hale (22) - still very young for a guy of his size, but is approaching the age where he will have more influence. Up until this point he is tracking very well with premier ruckman such as Cox at the same age. Great agility for a big guy, beautiful kick, will move forward more this year

McIntosh (22) - First real crack at senior footy and performed very well this year. Will see plenty of time in 2007 with Hale moving forward a bit. Great below his knees, great kick and around goals, huge (204cm). Still 2-3 years off prime - but will be influential.

Moran (20) - Has been playing footy for only 4 years. Runs 20m faster than most midfielders in the league. Is 201cm. Debuted with 21 possessions and best on ground. Played on and quelled Nathan Buckley in his second game. Little bit of excitement there.

McConnell (20) - spent two years with West Coast. Laidley traded for him. Didn't have a 2006 pre-season due to Glandular fever, came in late in the season and averaged 18 possessions. 191cm midfielder with very good skills who knows how to get the ball. Only 1 year older than Marc Murphy due to being originally drafted as an under age player.

Swallow (19) - Played a dozen games. Rising star nomination. A rarity that a player can come in and play as an in and under midfielder at his age. But he did it. And well. Led all first year players in stats such as contested poss, first poss, tackles, etc. A find.

Smith (20) - Had the best preseason form I have ever seen from young guy in 2006. Dominated practice matches and wizard cup. Broke his ankle in the last hit out before the season proper and missed the year. Automatice inclusion when fit. Adds pace, creativity, arrogance, courage and skill off the back line. Everything we lacked in 2006. Crucial ingredient.

plus the draft picks, of whom I would expect Hansen to play a fair bit of footy.


These sit with some of the best young guys in the league - and a lot of them are not so young that they are a long way off consistency.

players who will improve...anything at all?

Grant and Harvey went from all Australians in 2005 to out of B&F contention in 2006. Grant didn't even make the top 10. A lot of our players form (and pretty much everyone was down on form) was put down to a fitness strategy gone wrong. Could be excuses, but the club did say that they were going to go soft pre-season and taper the fitness of the players so that their fitness built up during the year and they were at the peak come finals. This was done to avoid repeating previous late season fade outs. It didn't work.

There is good reason to believe these two will return back to form. Grant is 29, Harvey is 28 - nowhere near past it.

Simpson and Archer are older and also had down years. Both carried injury. Both are very important to the team

The natural and continued improvement of mid rangers like Harris (24) and Firrito (22) will also help.


We won't finsih bottom 4.

 

[subtle hustle]

The club made an error in judgement regarding a particular staff member and was neglect in adapting to the rule changes that took place over the summer last year, which they've admitted probably 6 or 8 times.

That's it? You blame your poor season solely on your Fitness Advisor?
Nothing to do with your inability to play an attacking style of play, your poor trading for top up players who've taken you nowhere. Thompson being the one and only exception.

People blame Laidley's game plan for our poor season, and to an extent it was his fault but the major issue was the inability to run out a game, which is more to do with fitness than ability, and the fitness advisor has since been turfed and hence the club started it's pre season immediately at seasons end to make up lost ground from the 2006 pre season.

Do you actually believe what you type? You really think that your fitness advisor was to blame for all your poor perfromances?
Not your list or inept coach?

Young players? Smith, McConnell, Trotter, Swallow, Moran, Riggio, Grima, Gibson, Thomas, Hansen, Urquhart, Edwards (with brain in tact), McIntosh should suffice as youngsters I'd imagine. All 22 and under. In fact most are 21 and under.

Hmmm, for improvement from season players we'd be looking at Firrito, Petrie, Pratt, Harris, Wells, Jones, Watt (to come on again), a fit Brown, Hale.

Is that enough of a back up for you?

Seriously, if you took off your rose coloured glasses you'd see that a fair swag of your young players aren't too special, and aren't quite up to the standard of some of the youngsters at other AFL clubs.

Firrito, Petrie, Watt have all played ok at points but are far from great players.
Wells is inconsistent, Jones also and Harris turns the ball over too much, although he can still get it a fair bit.

I honestly can't see how you expect to leap-frog other teams and keep off the bottom.

 

[mark73]

Do you actually believe what you type? You really think that your fitness advisor was to blame for all your poor perfromances?
Not your list or inept coach?

No I'm with you. I believe the club is full of liars and that finishing 5th in 2005 was a furphy.

Seriously, if you took off your rose coloured glasses you'd see that a fair swag of your young players aren't too special, and aren't quite up to the standard of some of the youngsters at other AFL clubs.

I see. Well maybe you can do some "enlightening" and inform us Roos fans on your vast knowledge of our youngsters. The rest of your post I'm not really interested in as it is an opinion not a fact. And to top it off an opinion of a supporter who's club had a far worse year and taking away this years draft is found terribly wanting in genuine talent.

Also, next time try and target a club that hasn't had your measure for 5 years. You mightn't get so many arrogant responses.

 

[subtle hustle]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=262002&

Also, I'm not here to argue with a biased, blame the fitness advisor, supporter of the Roo's.
I'm after the opinion of nuetral supporters, or at least North supporters living in reality that their club aint goin to challenge the top 8 too soon.

p.s. Essendon have nothing to do with this poll.

 

[The Zebra]

I'm after the opinion of nuetral supporters, or at least North supporters living in reality that their club aint goin to challenge the top 8 too soon.

p.s. Essendon have nothing to do with this poll.

So unless people agree with you, you don't want to know about it?

Sounds like it has a lot to do with Essendon to me.

 

[subtle hustle]

You assume that 'bombers' mean Essendon and that I'm actually a supporter of thiers, so as to then try and flame that club in return for my opinions about your club and it's future.
Rather petty really.

 

[The Zebra]

You assume that 'bombers' mean Essendon and that I'm actually a supporter of thiers, so as to then try and flame that club in return for my opinions about your club and it's future.
Rather petty really.

Look at your poll options mate - who is petty?

You asked for reasons and have been given them.

If you think the Roos will spend the next 3-4 years in the bottom four you are delusional.

You talk about all our trades being bad - except for the Thompson one.....so that would mean the Hay trade is the only bad one right?


Deny supporting the Bombers all you like - we wont finish bottom 4.

 

[Richo83]

Just because a club has had 30 years of sustained good performances doesn't mean it will continue. Carlton was the only club not to win a spoon by 2001 and going by past performances (finals past three years) were going to kick on. The rest is as they say history.

I see Kangaroos problem not as the team, which I have been told by every roos fan on the planet is good even though it is constantly said in the same breath as Carlton. The problem I see is the staff and the facilities. For instance, Laidley is a crap coach, and obviously had no B plan when his stars were failing other than to chuck Archer in the backline.

Secondly, as the poorest club, the roos are already behind clubs like Adelaide and West Coast in training and facilities, but there's a joke going around that they burnt down the change rooms because the insurance money was worth more than the ground. The roos just don't have the staff or the equipment to compete. And the poverty is starting to bite.

While the roos may have been able to dominate bygone eras, yes, in today's world of football run by money and draft picks, the roos may fall behind. The West Coast are training with their own specialist headgear in which the coach is able to converse with his players about plays. On sportsworld (and all yoy roos fans can say I'm talking bulls***, but hey) the roos players after the fire were keeping warm inside their cars before they train and were forced to train at the TD. Big difference. The Kangaroos just don't have the money to compete with these sides.

And that's why I think they will stay at the bottom for a long time, which is a shame, because contrary to what you think, I like the Kangaroos, they never give up, and they have one of the best jumpers. Plus people like The Zebra seem like nice guys. And a death or a merger or a relocation is harsh for all involved. The Kangaroos fans, who tend to be very loyal, don't deserve that, which is why I hope the NM Kangaroos survive.

Sounds like a rambling piece, but this isn't a troll. Sorry if it reads like one.

 

[mark73]

Just because a club has had 30 years of sustained good performances doesn't mean it will continue. Carlton was the only club not to win a spoon by 2001 and going by past performances (finals past three years) were going to kick on. The rest is as they say history.

No, the rest as they say is cheating the system and undermining the salary cap resulting in hefty fines and draft expulsion. How that is in any way similar to the Kangaroos I have no idea.

I see Kangaroos problem not as the team, which I have been told by every roos fan on the planet is good even though it is constantly said in the same breath as Carlton.

No, the problem with the Kangaroos since 2001 has been the team as it was for Hawthorn at the end oif the 80's and Melbourne/Collingwood at the end of the 50's or the West Indies at the end of the 80's, and as it would be for any sporting team coming out of a golden era. But again, what that has to do with the next 5 years I have no idea.

The problem I see is the staff and the facilities. For instance, Laidley is a crap coach, and obviously had no B plan when his stars were failing other than to chuck Archer in the backline.

Huh? The administration at the Kangaroos would be one of the most efficient in the competition and has been for nearly 40 years. The TV deal and CBF wasn't always there to help out financially yet the club has never folded. Pretty simple philosophy if you ask me. Also, you're talking about an administration that in years gone by pioneered things that today people see as a matter of course.

Secondly, as the poorest club, the roos are already behind clubs like Adelaide and West Coast in training and facilities, but there's a joke going around that they burnt down the change rooms because the insurance money was worth more than the ground. The roos just don't have the staff or the equipment to compete. And the poverty is starting to bite.

Where was this joke? BigFooty? I find it strange that Melbourne and the "media friendly" Western Bulldogs are also on an AFL drip (and in 2005 both received more CBF money) and Melbourne IIRC had less members than us and yet we're the poorest club. How did you come to that conclusion?

While the roos may have been able to dominate bygone eras, yes, in today's world of football run by money and draft picks, the roos may fall behind.

Is that the early draft picks we received this year and the money we're receiving for committing to 3 games a year in SEQ?

The West Coast are training with their own specialist headgear in which the coach is able to converse with his players about plays.

What a shame he doesn't converse with them on the issues of curfews

On sportsworld (and all yoy roos fans can say I'm talking bulls***, but hey) the roos players after the fire were keeping warm inside their cars before they train and were forced to train at the TD. Big difference.

The Kangaroos social club is now at TD. It is a suburban ground owned by the Melbourne city council. Had a fire happened at Punt Rd or the Junction Oval, Melbourne or Richmond would have been in a similar position. This is not directed as an insult, but when it comes to the Kangaroos in just about every facet, I think you spend far too much time listening to the Melbourne football media ie:Caroline Wilson, Mike Sheahan etc.

The ground is taking on a redevelopment which when talking about the "poor ol' Kangas" seems to keep being forgotten. Their list has young talent and classy older players that for a number of reasons were woeful in 2006. Big deal. We're laughing to be honest. Most of us knew that a bad year sooner or later and the media knives would be coming out.
Again this is not an insult but your club is always pumped up and have been ordinary bar two years since 1982. Collingwood have been the most over exposed club of the last forty years, over exposed given they've basically done jacksh*t for most of that and yet listening to that same media you could be forgiven for assuming that every year is going to be their year.

The Kangaroos just don't have the money to compete with these sides.

Err well to be fair, I don't think there is a club in Melbourne apart from Collingwood that could financially compete with the likes of West Coast.

And that's why I think they will stay at the bottom for a long time, which is a shame

You're entitled to your opinion as everyone is I guess, I just think you're wrong, and on field anyway, in for a bit of a surprise in the next 2+ years.

 

[moistie]

No I'm with you. I believe the club is full of liars and that finishing 5th in 2005 was a furphy.

Hawthorn finished third in 2001 and then sunk like a stone. It took three seasons of that before the admin got wise and wiped the slate clean. North can't afford to wait that long.

You fail again this season, you'd better hope your admin sees the light and goes for the rebuild.

 

[Richo83]

No, the rest as they say is cheating the system and undermining the salary cap resulting in hefty fines and draft expulsion. How that is in any way similar to the Kangaroos I have no idea.

No idea eh? Good answer.

No, the problem with the Kangaroos since 2001 has been the team as it was for Hawthorn at the end oif the 80's and Melbourne/Collingwood at the end of the 50's or the West Indies at the end of the 80's, and as it would be for any sporting team coming out of a golden era. But again, what that has to do with the next 5 years I have no idea.

What happened to those teams after their golden period? They sunk like a stone. Thanks for giving me arguments to prove my argument. The Kangaroos have been on a golden period but will fall.

Huh? The administration at the Kangaroos would be one of the most efficient in the competition and has been for nearly 40 years. The TV deal and CBF wasn't always there to help out financially yet the club has never folded. Pretty simple philosophy if you ask me. Also, you're talking about an administration that in years gone by pioneered things that today people see as a matter of course.

Living in the past are we? Friday night football, was pioneered long ago by the Kangaroos, but there's no point living in the past. It's 2007, not the 70s.

Where was this joke? BigFooty? I find it strange that Melbourne and the "media friendly" Western Bulldogs are also on an AFL drip (and in 2005 both received more CBF money) and Melbourne IIRC had less members than us and yet we're the poorest club. How did you come to that conclusion?

Nope, it's too clever for bigfooty to think of it. I find you as one of the poorest clubs by the fact that in a few years time, your economic situation will force you to move to the GC. Any other clubs doing that? No? I wonder why?

Is that the early draft picks we received this year and the money we're receiving for committing to 3 games a year in SEQ?

Even with the SEQ money you're so far behind the likes of West Coast and Adelaide that three games wont compensate. And finally the roos do the right thing and don't top up with the dregs of Hawthorn's spine. I think they have learned something.

What a shame he doesn't converse with them on the issues of curfews The Kangaroos social club is now at TD. It is a suburban ground owned by the Melbourne city council. Had a fire happened at Punt Rd or the Junction Oval, Melbourne or Richmond would have been in a similar position. This is not directed as an insult, but when it comes to the Kangaroos in just about every facet, I think you spend far too much time listening to the Melbourne football media ie:Caroline Wilson, Mike Sheahan etc.

Ahh, no, Richmond's in a much better financial shape than the Kangaroos, we're no the ones who have to relocate some of their matches to Queensland. Punt Rd Oval is some of the richest real estate in Richmond. If we went down we could sell some of it and use the money to repair.

And who listens to Wilson or Sheahan? I just use common sense.

The ground is taking on a redevelopment which when talking about the "poor ol' Kangas" seems to keep being forgotten. Their list has young talent and classy older players that for a number of reasons were woeful in 2006. Big deal. We're laughing to be honest. Most of us knew that a bad year sooner or later and the media knives would be coming out.
Again this is not an insult but your club is always pumped up and have been ordinary bar two years since 1982. Collingwood have been the most over exposed club of the last forty years, over exposed given they've basically done jacksh*t for most of that and yet listening to that same media you could be forgiven for assuming that every year is going to be their year.

Every team has young talent, it's just that you have too much "classy" older players (HA!) and not enough GOOD young players. Fact is, Richmond or Collingwood isn't the club who has it's change rooms turned to ash and receiving money for partially relocating to the Cold Coast. Interesting that both clubs you mentioned comfortably beat the Kangaroos this year.

Err well to be fair, I don't think there is a club in Melbourne apart from Collingwood that could financially compete with the likes of West Coast.

Essendon is another. Hawthorn has a bit. Fact is, it's not just the money, it's the list. No way could a side lead by Daniel Wells beat Judd, Kerr and Cousins.

You're entitled to your opinion as everyone is I guess, I just think you're wrong, and on field anyway, in for a bit of a surprise in the next 2+ years.

I predicted where you finished this year. Why would next year be any different?

No insults? I'm disappointed. I feel like I missed out.

 

[Scruba]

atleast 3 years down the bottom