List Mgmt. List Management 2024-25

[shewho]

As fans, we look at list management with a focus on individuals, always hoping to get the best player possible in every position.

I don’t think that’s how Port see it. I suspect that Cripps and Davies look at where they want to spend the salary cap. They have made a conscious effort to use it on classy mids, key forwards and one key back. This explains:

• being prepared to trade Wingard (a forward) once it was clear he wouldn't put in the work to be a FT midfielder
• being prepared to trade Houston rather than pay a half back an inside mid's wage
• recruiting B Grade rucks (Soldo, Sweet), supporting tall backs (Rat, BZT) and a supporting small forward (Richards)

The reality is you cannot have A-Graders in every position on the field because of the salary cap. You need to pick where you spend your big bucks. Classic error is Adelaide with Rankine- top end money on a forward. If he was a full time mid, ok but they get slightly more out of Rankine than we do Rioli for about $300,000 more per year. That means they are short changed elsewhere.

Other examples- Collingwood with Grundy, Melbourne with Grundy (especially as a second ruck) and Fremantle with Jackson/Darcy- one of them is justified but paying high end wages for two rucks when they could have had one of them and spent the rest on a star tall forward would've been much more judicious.

 

[Us against the rest]

I had a doctor run an hour and a half late for an appointment today so I thought Id have a look at comments around Quinton Narkle on the Facebook site AFL Trades Delistings, Retirements and Free Agents. I was surprised at how many Port supporters were disappointed at his delisting. According to them he's been terrific in many games as a sub.Im fine with those disagree but in my view our sub players were terrible in 2024 bar Wagner and NOD for a game.

I had the time and I looked at his stats. By my count he played 13 games 8 of which he started as sub in 2024. After he had an interrupted preseason and then he suffered two injuries that resulted him missing six weeks and 3 weeks. After a couple of SANFL games after injury he returned to the team playing mostly sub. I checked his stat and what he regularly had as a sub was mathes raging from 4-10 possessions in games where had around 23% game. He also had an 13 possession game as sub but he played 40% so he got subbed early. H normally plays a high half forward role when he's sub due to Ports midfield depth as they want to keep their best players on the ground.

I also asked about his defensive running and was told he's played mostly midfield in the SANFL games he played as he did in the VFL and he's improved a ton. He's certainly had a few big possession games including 33 possessions in the game before he debuted in 2023 and a SANFL games he played late in 2024 after playing a series of games as a sub where he had 32 possessions.

So why was he delisted then. According to Port supporters they think the coaches want to get games into young mids and Narkle's 26 and there was a list squeeze which does make sense.

After looking into him Ive done a 180 degree turn and changed my mind. I think he feels a list need playing sub. Im confident many will change their mind after the 1st preseason reports. Here's an example of what he offers Here's his highlight from 3 afl games played in 2023 after coming over as a midseason draftee.

Amazing when you get a good honest footballer and put him in a better system with a better coach, he was never going to make it at the Ken Hinkley football Club.

 

[Haggas]

Amazing when you get a good honest footballer and put him in a better system with a better coach, he was never going to make it at the Ken Hinkley football Club.

Narkle is not a good AFL footballer

 

[Us against the rest]

Narkle is not a good AFL footballer

Maybe but Hinkley is not a good coach either.

 

[Haggas]

Maybe but Hinkley is not a good coach either.

Agree Hinkley is a worse AFL coach than Narkle is an AFL footballer

 

[Jimmy Unchained]

As fans, we look at list management with a focus on individuals, always hoping to get the best player possible in every position.

I don’t think that’s how Port see it. I suspect that Cripps and Davies look at where they want to spend the salary cap. They have made a conscious effort to use it on classy mids, key forwards and one key back. This explains:

• being prepared to trade Wingard (a forward) once it was clear he wouldn't put in the work to be a FT midfielder
• being prepared to trade Houston rather than pay a half back an inside mid's wage
• recruiting B Grade rucks (Soldo, Sweet), supporting tall backs (Rat, BZT) and a supporting small forward (Richards)

The reality is you cannot have A-Graders in every position on the field because of the salary cap. You need to pick where you spend your big bucks. Classic error is Adelaide with Rankine- top end money on a forward. If he was a full time mid, ok but they get slightly more out of Rankine than we do Rioli for about $300,000 more per year. That means they are short changed elsewhere.

Other examples- Collingwood with Grundy, Melbourne with Grundy (especially as a second ruck) and Fremantle with Jackson/Darcy- one of them is justified but paying high end wages for two rucks when they could have had one of them and spent the rest on a star tall forward would've been much more judicious.

I agree except for 3 points.

1. We didn't have to pay Houston more, he was contracted until the end of 2027 (opting out of free agency for long-term security apparently).
2. I think you are off on your assessment of Rankine, he's played 5 games above 40% CBA's this year and would have been considered an elite mid-forward if he didn't have the interruptions through suspension and concussion.
3. While you can't have A-Graders in every position, immediately capitulating when you finally have an A-grader on a beneficial contract is a laughable list strategy. Even if our first-round pick ends up as good as Dan Houston, we'll have to pay him like an A-Grader because clubs will be circling to offer a former first-rounder a big contract if we don't stump up. You don't have the 90s Chicago Bulls without that Pippen contract.

 

[Jimmy Unchained]

The list management team is currently paying the debt for poor drafting and development of tall players.

Our spine this year was almost entirely trade-ins (Dixon, Soldo/Sweet, Aliir, Zerk-Thatcher), not to mention Ratugolea. This is the most of any top 8 team, all the others have at least 2, most have at least 3.

Since 2012 we have drafted 19 talls (Georgiades/McKenzie and taller). Every other top 8 team this year has drafted more despite most of them already having better Tall players on their list throughout this period.

We have targeted 15 talls through trade/free agents. This is equal first of all teams, alongside Hawthorn (Who have attempted to recruit some absolute piss blasters in Vickery, Patton, and Hartigan and recruited back Gunston) and Carlton (who couldn't stop themselves when it came to GWS rejects). We don't rate drafting talls as much as other clubs, so we pay up for them in draft capital and salary.

Each of the other clubs has had late draft picks give value because they keep going back to the well.

Payne (54), Aliir (44), Stewart (40), Kolodjashnij (41), Riccardi (51), Sweet (R23), Sicily (56), Silvagni (53)

Our best late-drafted contributors are Clurey who was ok but we've put a line through, as well as Howard and Ladhams, who we traded and aren't best 22 at their new clubs. Lord might come good, we'll see.

The numbers I've worked off using draft guru and a bit of adjusting on the fly (Tom Green

12

Tom Green

Age

23

Ht

192cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.5

3star

K

4.3

2star

HB

7.3

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.3

4star

CL

2.8

4star

D

11.5

3star

K

4.3

2star

HB

7.3

4star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.3

3star

CL

2.8

4star

D

11.5

3star

K

4.3

2star

HB

7.3

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.3

4star

CL

2.8

5star

, Finn Callaghan are not talls but James Sicily

6

James Sicily

Age

29

Ht

188cm

Wt

90kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.3

5star

K

12.7

5star

HB

5.7

4star

M

6.3

5star

T

1.5

3star

MG

365.0

5star

D

19.4

4star

K

14.3

5star

HB

5.1

3star

M

5.9

5star

T

1.0

2star

MG

437.4

5star

D

10.0

3star

K

6.0

3star

HB

4.0

3star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

173.8

3star

is depsite being shorter). There are certainly some mistakes, but the difference between the other clubs and us is so stark that I think my point stands.

Clubs	Drafted Players in 2024 Spine	Talls Drafted since 2012 (191cm + ish)	Tall Free Agents/Trades (191cm + ish) in since 2012
Brisbane	4	25	13
Bulldogs	3	22	14
Carlton	3	23	15
Geelong	3	27	12
GWS	4	27	9
Hawthorn	2	31	15
Port	1	19	15
Sydney	4	27	11

The question is what came first the chicken or the egg? Did we decide to not focus on drafting talls because we can't develop them, or can we not develop them because we don't draft enough?

 

[Tibbs]

We weren’t exactly stacked with small forward options. And we had SPP out all season and Rioli went on his usual mid year hiatus.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

You see, this is the same bullsh!t fed to us by the likes of Kornes and the Hinkley-loving media ... Just another form of "but who else will we get" piece of rubbish!!

And yes, I am angry. Because it just keeps happening under the sickening administration at this club!

So to reply to your comment ... yes, you are right, they did have a lack of immediate options. But why the hell go back to doing the same thing over, and over again, when it was patently clear it was not working!

Try something different! Be bold with some changing positions! Put the out-of-form Rozee back as a forward! Or throw William in as a forward again! Blood some new younger players! Get some games into Lorenz and Anasta!

For God's sake try ANYTHING! That's what a good coach would do, rather than doing "the same thing over, and over again, expecting a different result!"

Insanity!