ladder 2003

[moomba]

Originally posted by MarkT
Yes Moomba, but unless they have discovered some reverse ageing process they are still ageing.

We don't like to publicise our new physical conditioning techniques.

Moomba

 

[Lockyer24]

1. Collingwood - Tarrant/Fraser/Didak/Woey and fit Molloy/O'Bree take the Pies to the next level.
2. Port - Another solid year thanks to good recruiting.
3. Brisbane - Complacency, arrogance sets in.
4. Western Bulldogs - Best drilled side in the comp. Solid kids.
5. West Coast - Superb home record, few gutsy wins interstate.
6. Adelaide - Solid year. Welsh upstages Carey who plays only half the season.
7. Geelong - Continued development, superb home record.
8. Richmond - Great recruiting and having fit players helps them make the 8.

9. Hawthorn - Another mediocre year. Schwab is sacked.
10. Fremantle - After being in the 8 all year fall out after Rd 22.
11. Essendon - No depth, one injury to any of their big guns and they are gawn.
12. Sydney - No good kids. Hall stars.
13. St Kilda - Start in a blaze of glory then fade badly. Bye bye Cornflakes.
14. Carlton - Improve slightly on 2002, not that its hard. Kouta shadow of former self. Ageing list, no good kids.
15. Melbourne - Depleted midfield, lack of backline. Daniher is sacked.
16. Kangaroos - Rebuilding, Laidley will have em back sooner rather than later though.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by moomba
Who was your b&f in 2002?

Moomba

"Ben Hart won his second Malcolm Blight Medal as Adelaide's club champion in 2002. Hart polled 162 votes to win by 16 votes from Tyson Edwards."

Why do you ask, Moomba?

 

[da_bomber]

Originally posted by Lockyer24


11. Essendon - No depth, one injury to any of their big guns and they are gawn.
.

What r u talking about?
Essendon had the 3rd worst injury list and we finished 5th and your trying to say this.
How is it that we managed to finish half a game off a team who had no injuries in the top four.
Were have you been mate!!!!!!!!
If anything we have probably the best amount of depth in the comp unlike some other teams who cant seam to win consistently without their captain!!!!!!!!!!!!( COLLINGWOOD)

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by da_bomber
What r u talking about?
Essendon had the 3rd worst injury list and we finished 5th and your trying to say this.
How is it that we managed to finish half a game off a team who had no injuries in the top four.
Were have you been mate!!!!!!!!
If anything we have probably the best amount of depth in the comp unlike some other teams who cant seam to win consistently without their captain!!!!!!!!!!!!( COLLINGWOOD)

I think he's referring to the fact that you've traded three 1st 22 players in Caracella, Heffernan and Blumfield for a few draft picks. As such, their positions on field will be filled by the next available players in those positions who really weren't putting much pressure on those three for spots last year.

So then all you have left is complete rookies - I dunno how much competition you think there'll be for a spot in the 22 (the judge of useful depth), but I don't reckon it'll be as much as previously.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by ok.crows
"Ben Hart won his second Malcolm Blight Medal as Adelaide's club champion in 2002. Hart polled 162 votes to win by 16 votes from Tyson Edwards."

Why do you ask, Moomba?

I thought it was Johnson, which would have made an explanation for Adelaide's fall a lot more plausible. I have picked them for top 4 but a lot of that is based on the expectation that Carey and Burns to a lesser extent will improve the side. If neither works out I think Adelaides list on the whole is worse than it was last year. Torney will be OK, but will not make up for the loss of Johnson IMO.

Moomba

 

[Tio_Ray]

Originally posted by ok.crows
I personally think it is way too early to predict a top 8, but if I were to do it seriously I would look at how teams went in 2002, normalise them a little to up-rate those teams who had a unusually heavy injury load, and adjust it further if any teams have actually gained or lost any proven "first 22" players from/to other clubs.

I'd look at teams who have very inexperienced lists (say by looking at #players who have less than say 20 games), and de-rate those, but for teams with a fair number of players with just over say 50 games - I'd boost their rating a little since those players have now got the tempo of AFL and can be expected to be better for the experience but still young & fit.

I'd also de-rate teams whose coaches don't have much experience, or teams whose coaches are new to the club or who don't have a good win/loss ratio.

Finally, I'd adjust it so that no team changed ladder position by more than about five spots - since such a shift is exceptional - unless there were a whole host of factors indicating a very radical change in form.

None of that would yeild a drop of six ladder places for the Crows (in fact I'm struggling to find even one real negative), nor can you justify any massive climb up the ladder for Sydney or Hawthorn (where are their enormous gains?), although a fair rise for Geelong is not unreasonable.

Other factors to be considered are club stability & politics, and if a club has been improving lately or sliding.

Finally you will note that a lot of posters have kept the same top 4 as this year. While history says that is very unlikely, I hesitate to guess which of the top 4 would in fact slide - Brisbane I would suspect to be at least a little saited, Port fairly desperate to shake their "can't do finals" tag, Adelaide are clearly expecting to give the flag a really solid go next season and Collingwood may or may not expect it all to just happen again for them.

So, err, (without actually having done that as described above, but anyway) if you did it then surely it would work out roughly something like:

1 Port
2 Crows
3 Brisbane
4 Melbourne
5 Collingwood
6 Geelong
7 Essendon
and a roughie, 8 Richmond

... but with the caveat that I think the last few spots could eaily be raffled between West Coast, Freo, Saints, Hawks, Kangaroos or Doggies. Oh, and just about any team is liable to surprise.

We just won't have any real inkling until at least the Wizard Cup and probably not until round 5 or so.

However ... maybe there is some sense at least with proposing something at least that stays within at least credible odds of happening.

Bla ..bla...bla ok.crows.....first you get so upset that I didn't use your back yard method of predicting the ladder and then you do the same.....why not simply say you are upset I didn't have the Crows in the top 2.

Wake up son....its just a wild guess that everyone makes...and by the way...the wizard cup means NOTHING and is used for practice only as it is ment to be.

 

[Lockyer24]

Originally posted by da_bomber
What r u talking about?
Essendon had the 3rd worst injury list and we finished 5th and your trying to say this.
How is it that we managed to finish half a game off a team who had no injuries in the top four.
Were have you been mate!!!!!!!!
If anything we have probably the best amount of depth in the comp unlike some other teams who cant seam to win consistently without their captain!!!!!!!!!!!!( COLLINGWOOD)

3rd worst injury list, maybe you should put that riveting stat in your signature. We had plenty of injuries too, Molloy (2nd BF) missed most of the season as did O'Bree (3rd BF) not to mention Bucks missed a month, Tarrant had a knackered hip for half the season and Lonie, Fraser and Rocca all had no pre-season. Where does that put us on the injury sook ladder?

Where have I been? finishing higher than you underachievers!

As for not consistently winning without our Captain, I dunno what you're on about pal...I think we've won a lot more games than we've lost without Bucks. See the Port Semi Final game for our most recent effort, something you were unable to do a week later.

 

[tashibatts]

Originally posted by MarkT
Yes Moomba, but unless they have discovered some reverse ageing process they are still ageing.

They are aging yes.. but instead of aging and turning 30 alot of em will be aging and turning 19/20/21 or 22..

Go Roos

 

[da_bomber]

Originally posted by Porthos
I think he's referring to the fact that you've traded three 1st 22 players in Caracella, Heffernan and Blumfield for a few draft picks. As such, their positions on field will be filled by the next available players in those positions who really weren't putting much pressure on those three for spots last year.

So then all you have left is complete rookies - I dunno how much competition you think there'll be for a spot in the 22 (the judge of useful depth), but I don't reckon it'll be as much as previously.

As the judge (as you pointed out)
Those player didnt step up consistently when we need them to thats why they are out of here to be replaced by better up and coming players.
There was no one really putting pressure really on them because we had too many injuries to start dropping experienced players.
But I think there will be alot of competitiveness for a spot now because we have now Solomon to comeback and Mercuri who missed the last 14 games being injured plus alot of good youngsters in Welsh, Cupido, McPhee, Harvey, Forster-Knight, Hunt and ruckmen we picked at the draft who will all fight for a spot and would want to stay there if they do get in.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

after rnd 22:

1/.PORT- will win all home games.addition of wilson and pickett added bonus.
2/.BRISBANE- same reason as port will win all home games and have not lost nothing that cant be replaced.only ? mark is their appetite.
3/.-ADELAIDE CROWS- amazing how one player can make all the difference to a team.carey,s arrival has plugged up their one weakness if he can stay on the paddock.

4/.RICHMOND- maybe a bit biased here however with the recruitment of johnson and blumfield and the expected improvement from coughlan and rodan our weakness[midfield]has been resolved to a degree.
5/.COLLINGWOOD- will still maintain the 2002 level with a good even team effort however their backline still has a few question marks about it.
6/.ESSENDON- could easly end up in the top 4 however with hird and fletcher starting to become more injury prone mid range would be about the best.
7/.STKILDA- if ever the saints are to rise it has to be in 2003.they have enough depth to cover any injurys anything but the 8 will be a disapointing result for the saints.
8/.MELBOURNE- will just scrape into the 8 on percentage from freo.
9/.FREMANTLE- their lack of abilty to win away from home will cost them a place in the finals.
10/.-GEELONG- will stumble a tad from 2002 good kids on the way up but a few sides will have worked them out.
11/.WEST COAST- like geelong they will stumble however thier future looks good beyond 2003.
12/-KANGEROOS. no pagan will be telling.rebuilding.

13/.BULLDOGS- rookie coach with the bigman strength in their backline will be their achillies heal.
14/.HAWTHORN- the slide will continue for the hawks.they have problems within.
15/.CARLTON- had them marked down for 16th however they are lucky the swans have a worse list.
16/.SYDNEY- worst list in the comp.roos honeymoon as a coach will well and truely be over.tough times ahead.

cheers!

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Tio_Ray
Bla ..bla...bla ok.crows.....first you get so upset that I didn't use your back yard method of predicting the ladder and then you do the same.....why not simply say you are upset I didn't have the Crows in the top 2.

Wake up son....its just a wild guess that everyone makes...and by the way...the wizard cup means NOTHING and is used for practice only as it is ment to be.

I couldn't give a fig if you had the Crows in your top 2 or not ... I just noted that I found your stated reason frankly bizarre.

"9 Adelaide - honest side that will go better IF carey can still play".

Come on now, in 2002 the Crows with a bit of a struggling forward setup that is changed week to week - yet still manage to get to third spot and score the fourth highest in the competition on the strength of the rest of the side - then they add Carey and suddenly the Crows will slip a fair way down to ninth unless Carey does well?

You have yet to answer the question - how so?

If Carey doesn't kick a single sausage for Crows in 2003 - why shouldn't the Crows still be capable of third spot?

BTW - I only had my wild-arse stab because someone explicitly asked me for it. Normally I wouldn't hazard any guess at a ladder this early.

 

[Zombie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ladder 2003

Originally posted by grayham
I wouldnt be counting your chickens just yet. In Sydney position, McVeigh was a good choice. There would be a fair chance that Salopek will be playing for elsewhere in 2006 citing homesickness.

I highly doubt it, Salopek has already stated that loyalty is one of his highest values. Players returning home occurs very rarely, you speak of it as if every interstate player returns home.

Sydney made a very poor choice, had Sydney not picked him he wouldn't have gone until a pick in the teens, so that is possibly 12 players that would have been chosen before him. Taking players from home states is a good idea, but if they are not available (ie not good enough to be picked at the pick you have) then you don't take them.

Port had the choice of taking Salopek or Schammer, it wasn't a hard decision because Salopek was so much better than Schammer which made him so much better still than McVeigh, Sydneys loss is Ports gain though I guess.

 

[da_bomber]

Originally posted by Lockyer24
3rd worst injury list, maybe you should put that riveting stat in your signature. We had plenty of injuries too, Molloy (2nd BF) missed most of the season as did O'Bree (3rd BF) not to mention Bucks missed a month, Tarrant had a knackered hip for half the season and Lonie, Fraser and Rocca all had no pre-season. Where does that put us on the injury sook ladder?

Where have I been? finishing higher than you underachievers!

As for not consistently winning without our Captain, I dunno what you're on about pal...I think we've won a lot more games than we've lost without Bucks. See the Port Semi Final game for our most recent effort, something you were unable to do a week later.

I would like to see how you would go without for example in Collingwood players:
Rocca Lloyd
Buckley Hird
McKee Alessio
Licuria Misiti
Burns Mercuri
Wakelin Solomon
Prestigiacomo Fletcher

All out for the same period of time or 5 -10 week periods indervidually and how do we flop without one big gun?
We win with or without a big gun consistently and not just one off games here and there like yous.
Geez a Qauter Final is one mate. Try winning a few more without him consistently and come back cause everyone knows you havent one without him over the years consistently and I would like to think how you would go without the above mentioned out at the same time.

and look at how we made the finals every year bar 3 times since the 1990 Grand Final and won 2 premierships. Something you couldnt do!

 

[TheMase]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ladder 2003

Originally posted by Zombie
I highly doubt it, Salopek has already stated that loyalty is one of his highest values. Players returning home occurs very rarely, you speak of it as if every interstate player returns home.

Sydney made a very poor choice, had Sydney not picked him he wouldn't have gone until a pick in the teens, so that is possibly 12 players that would have been chosen before him. Taking players from home states is a good idea, but if they are not available (ie not good enough to be picked at the pick you have) then you don't take them.

Port had the choice of taking Salopek or Schammer, it wasn't a hard decision because Salopek was so much better than Schammer which made him so much better still than McVeigh, Sydneys loss is Ports gain though I guess.

Are you psychic? You can see into the future?
No body knows how anybody will go. For all anyone knows Goddard could turn out to be a dud. How about we wait a few years before we start claiming that teams have made mistakes.

They are in a better position to choose players and assess players than you, I or anyone else on this site is.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by moomba
I thought it was Johnson, which would have made an explanation for Adelaide's fall a lot more plausible. I have picked them for top 4 but a lot of that is based on the expectation that Carey and Burns to a lesser extent will improve the side. If neither works out I think Adelaides list on the whole is worse than it was last year. Torney will be OK, but will not make up for the loss of Johnson IMO.

Moomba

Torney is most decidedly not a direct replacement for Johnson. Torney is quite a bit more restricted in the roles he is suitable for.

However, there is a role that Torney is suitable for - he is a backline player. He managed 5th in Richmonds b&f I believe.

Johnson probably ranked about the same in Crows b&f. So Crows can play Torney back, and that will release someone else (who was playing back) to take Johnsons role. Not Smart nor Hart but possibly Goodwin, Johnco(k or Bickley (or a combination of these).

I can't see that the Crows lose a lot here really. They have got plenty of quality players as coverage of Johnsons role.

If neither Carey nor Burns works out, (and we assume that Johnson is replaced by the re-shuffle after Torney goes into Crows backline) the rest of Adelaide's list is nearly exactly the same as last year. Fitzgerald, Bienke & Hewitt are gone - none were exactly huge contributers in 2002. Possible new inclusions - a tough contest between: Carey; Burns; Torney; Rutten; Mattner; Gallagher; Hentschel; Schuback; Rielly & Bock.

If you don't know who some of those are, then you can't really say if the best four of those in replacing the games that Johnson, Fitzgerald, Bienke & Hewitt played will be an improvement or not.

I am confident there will be an improvement - even if Carey & Burns don't rate a single game in 2003. I think you may find that players like Nelson & Massie & maybe Doughty & Crowell may also struggle to get places in the side as well, with the competition for spots. I think you will also find the slow improvement of the Crows over these past three seasons can possibly continue a little as a number of their less-well-know players start to rack up a respectable amount of AFL experience (over 50 games).

 

[grayham]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ladder 2003

Originally posted by Zombie
I highly doubt it, Salopek has already stated that loyalty is one of his highest values. Players returning home occurs very rarely, you speak of it as if every interstate player returns home.

Loyalty to what? His parents, friends, and home town?

McVeigh would have gone top 3 if he wasnt injured this year. Its a risk to take an injured player, but I think McVeigh fits into the Sydney well. Much as Salopek fits into Port.
Its win-win if you ask me.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by moomba
I thought it was Johnson, which would have made an explanation for Adelaide's fall a lot more plausible. I have picked them for top 4 but a lot of that is based on the expectation that Carey and Burns to a lesser extent will improve the side. If neither works out I think Adelaides list on the whole is worse than it was last year. Torney will be OK, but will not make up for the loss of Johnson IMO.

Moomba

Out: Johnson

In: Carey, Burns, Torney, Begley

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. Our list is obviously worse than last year.

 

[Leigh Roy]

Nobody (ok not all) understands that it'll require looking at the form of the other teams - for instance on paper the Crows look to be a gun side but a few times during the 2003 season (especially their run home) they have very tough series of games, running a gauntlet like that takes its toll on a side no matter how skilled they are.

Also, a side looking to keep its finals hopes alive will have to rely on other teams to stumble, there will be logjams for the top two and top four as well as the top eight many many times I bet, it'll be so competitive.

That's where a team's consistency will come into play, who cares if they have a star midfield or a freakish forward line. I think it was Port in 2001 who went great throughout most of the season, kicking very high scores - then towards the end most other teams had sussed their strategy out and were able to counter them.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Torney is most decidedly not a direct replacement for Johnson. Torney is quite a bit more restricted in the roles he is suitable for.

I realise that, my point being that loss of Johnson is more significant that the gain of Torney IMO.

However, there is a role that Torney is suitable for - he is a backline player. He managed 5th in Richmonds b&f I believe.

Johnson probably ranked about the same in Crows b&f. So Crows can play Torney back, and that will release someone else (who was playing back) to take Johnsons role. Not Smart nor Hart but possibly Goodwin, Johnco(k or Bickley (or a combination of these).

I would argue that a medium size backman is much less important than a true midfielder. Goodwin, Johnco(k and Bickley were all good contributors last year, and if you take any of them away from the roles they were in last year you will need someone to replace there.

I can't see that the Crows lose a lot here really. They have got plenty of quality players as coverage of Johnsons role.

Straight swap Johnson for Torney you wouldn't take in a million years. If Carey doesn't contribute the loss of Johnson, even facotring in the gain of Torney will be a negative.

If neither Carey nor Burns works out, (and we assume that Johnson is replaced by the re-shuffle after Torney goes into Crows backline) the rest of Adelaide's list is nearly exactly the same as last year. Fitzgerald, Bienke & Hewitt are gone - none were exactly huge contributers in 2002. Possible new inclusions - a tough contest between: Carey; Burns; Torney; Rutten; Mattner; Gallagher; Hentschel; Schuback; Rielly & Bock.

If you don't know who some of those are, then you can't really say if the best four of those in replacing the games that Johnson, Fitzgerald, Bienke & Hewitt played will be an improvement or not.

I thought this whole argument is based on the assumption that if Carey and Burns don't contribute that the Crows will be worse in 2003. Of the rest only Torney has proven that he can be a significant contributor to an AFL side. Gallagher has only played a few games and the rest are yet to play one. To suggest that any of them will replace Johnson is a touch optimstic as far as I am concerned.

I am confident there will be an improvement - even if Carey & Burns don't rate a single game in 2003. I think you may find that players like Nelson & Massie & maybe Doughty & Crowell may also struggle to get places in the side as well, with the competition for spots. I think you will also find the slow improvement of the Crows over these past three seasons can possibly continue a little as a number of their less-well-know players start to rack up a respectable amount of AFL experience (over 50 games).

Same scenario at every club. I am sure that North will improve in 2003, however it does not make us immune to finishing the season in a worse position on the ladder. Adelaide is in the same position as every other club, a significant improvement will be needed to maintain their status, anything less than that will result in a fall down the ladder.

Moomba

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by macca23
Out: Johnson

In: Carey, Burns, Torney, Begley

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. Our list is obviously worse than last year.

You're obviously finding reading difficult today so I might highlight a few words from the post you have quoted.

I thought it was Johnson, which would have made an explanation for Adelaide's fall a lot more plausible. I have picked them for top 4 but a lot of that is based on the expectation that Carey and Burns to a lesser extent will improve the side. If neither works out I think Adelaides list on the whole is worse than it was last year. Torney will be OK, but will not make up for the loss of Johnson IMO.

Therefore if Carey and Burns do not work out:

Out: Johnson
In: Torney, Begley

Yes, in this case your list would definately be worse than last year

 

[stefoid]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ladder 2003

Yeah, you often see rookies who have just been drafted interstate say things like "well this sucks, Im going to hate it, and Ive got my flight back to melbourne pre-booked in 24mnths time"

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by moomba
I realise that, my point being that loss of Johnson is more significant that the gain of Torney IMO.

I know, you said. I was just pointing out that while Johnson was more flexible & a true midfielder & Torney was only a backman, nevertheless both were important players to their club & it was really only a matter of playing them in the right spots - so a bit of a re-shuffle is required.

I would argue that a medium size backman is much less important than a true midfielder. Goodwin, Johnco(k and Bickley were all good contributors last year, and if you take any of them away from the roles they were in last year you will need someone to replace there.

Err, yes - Torney. Torney to go back in place of Goodwin, Goodwin to have a bigger role in Crows midfield. Goodwin can play a true midfielder role & is a quality player probably slightly ahead of Johnson. Meanwhile, Torney takes over Goodwins backline role, a job Torney is capable of. No problemo. Reshuffle achieved.

Straight swap Johnson for Torney you wouldn't take in a million years.

Straight swap - no deal, you are right. However, the Crows have spare "Johnson class" players - some of them even playing in "Torney type" roles.

Straight swap - no. Reshuffle (given Crows excess of quality midfielders) - no problem.

If Carey doesn't contribute the loss of Johnson, even facotring in the gain of Torney will be a negative.

Que? What was that again?

I thought this whole argument is based on the assumption that if Carey and Burns don't contribute that the Crows will be worse in 2003. Of the rest only Torney has proven that he can be a significant contributor to an AFL side. Gallagher has only played a few games and the rest are yet to play one. To suggest that any of them will replace Johnson is a touch optimstic as far as I am concerned.

We have already dealt with the 'loss of Johnson' problem - with the re-shuffle that puts Torney into Crows backline and one of the 'midfield-rated' backline players (Goodwin, Johnco(k or Bickley) into the midfield.

The Crows only have to replace Johnson once, Moomba. There weren't six of him.

Torney->HBF->Goodwin->midfield->Johnson->out.

Gallagher was injured for the first part of last year, and found it tough to break back into the side. He is doing a lot better right now. But he is not Johnson's replacement - we have already covered that.

The point is, apart form Johnson, from last year the Crows must also replace the 2002 contributions of three others as well. I named a "Torney in Goodwin to the midfield" reshuffle to replace Johnson, and I named 10 other players in the contest to replace the contributions of the other three.

Carey & Burns are just two of those 10 contenders vying for a place in Crows first 22 in 2003. Actually, Begley is possibly another one, so make that 11 contenders.

There is so much of a hot contest going on here that it even appears that the positions of up to 4 {edit: 5} other of Crows players in 2002 (Nelson, Massie, Crowell {edit: Schell} & Doughty) are also in question.

Not only do the Crows have all of their losses well covered, but they may not be able to find a spot for up to four (or possibly more) of their 2002 semi-regular players.

Hence this leads to an entirely reasonable expectation of an improvement in Crows list for 2003.

 

[moomba]

For the love of god.

One question. Would you prefer:

a) Johnson in the midfield and Goodwin in defence
b) Goodwin in the midfield and Torney in defence

If the answer is a) you have proven my point. If it is b) you have proven my suspicions.

Moomba

 

[moomba]

By the way, Channel 10 over here are reporting that Wayne has just done a hammy at Crows training. It's a bit harder for these older players, hope this doesn't get to be a problem over the next year or so.

Moomba