List Mgmt. List Management Discussion for 2022

[HairyO]

I am fascinated with how the Tom situation pans out. Help him get a 3 year deal at another club OR shake hands and off he goes at the end of '23? If a future 2nd was offered, surely it is seriously considered.

Jack, I just don't see why he would leave for another club. Too much messing about for the latter stages of his career.

Grundy makes sense, at the right price. Gives me flashbacks of the Salmon trade.

Loyalty vs high likelihood of winning a Coleman and a flag in a team which an elite midfield delivering him the ball.

Its a massive decision.

 

[KermitJagger]

Most FAs are 27 years old or above. But the time we are contending they will be 30+ and on the decline.

The thinking is you want a core of elite 25-27 year olds when you are competing for a flag. Reckon it’s less relevant when rebuilding as it’s more getting that group of elite talent together to grow into their prime years.

Given we finished 13th in a supposed hard development year if anything suggests we have too many senior players rather than not enough. Now admittedly the influence of Gunston/Breust/Sicily is massive but getting a JJ type isn’t going to plug the gap if Gunston or Mitchell leaves (both on and off field). If was an inside bull maybe (given how we get smacked around the clearances), but we’re going okay for outside types and feels more likely to take a spot from a kid who needs game time.

When North Melbourne went through a process of identifying the issues they've had recently, one of the findings was that they lacked players in that specific age bracket.

If your taking from this season is that we have too many senior players I'm not sure you've looked at our age profile in most games this year. Every round we were one of the youngest teams, and we had the largest volume of players under 50 games - hovering somewhere between 10-13 players in that bracket most weeks. We have too many players on the lower end of the experience bracket, and while we had a reasonable amount on the upper end of the experience bracket we had sweet FA in the middle.

It's cool because we get to see those players develop and we have a sense of investment, but it is a problem when the experience we have is poorly balanced with youth - have a look at our backline against Richmond for example. Every club needs to have a balance of players across all age groups, doesn't matter where they are on the theoretical premiership clock.

You're using JJ as an example, I'm not. He's not in the age bracket I was talking about.

 

[Mercy Seat]

Not one Hawk on this list. Surely Jai gets in here, Day would be if not for an interrupted year.

 

[HawksILove]

I prefer to lose Mitchell and Breust instead of Mitchell and Gunston

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Hawthorn2023]

Loyalty vs high likelihood of winning a Coleman and a flag in a team which an elite midfield delivering him the ball.

Its a massive decision.

IMO his body is past winning a Coleman. At a contending team, he would most likely be 3rd forward.

2 more years at Hawks, reach 250 games and 500 goals.

Invaluable leader for Hawks.

 

[Hawthorn2023]

Not one Hawk on this list. Surely Jai gets in here, Day would be if not for an interrupted year.

Fan based team. yawn.

 

[Simon Crawshay]

I am fascinated with how the Tom situation pans out. Help him get a 3 year deal at another club OR shake hands and off he goes at the end of '23? If a future 2nd was offered, surely it is seriously considered.

Jack, I just don't see why he would leave for another club. Too much messing about for the latter stages of his career.

Grundy makes sense, at the right price. Gives me flashbacks of the Salmon trade.

Geez Salmon was so good for the Hawks, great memories of the Big Fish dominating in the Brown and Gold.

If it worked out the same with Grundy that would be an awesome outcome.

 

[almuz]

Not one Hawk on this list. Surely Jai gets in here, Day would be if not for an interrupted year.

Not too fussed as it’s fan voted. Our 3-peat side wasn’t always dominating the AA team either FWIW. Leave those sorts of accolades to the Carltons of the world

I like our current rebuild which will hopefully create a team that’s better than the sum of its parts.

 

[Todman]

Not too fussed as it’s fan voted. Our 3-peat side wasn’t always dominating the AA team either FWIW. Leave those sorts of accolades to the Carltons of the world

I like our current rebuild which will hopefully create a team that’s better than the sum of its parts.

Our grumpy little 4 time premiership coach was never "Coach of the Year"

 

[H00t]

Not one Hawk on this list. Surely Jai gets in here, Day would be if not for an interrupted year.

It’s a tough midfield to break into. At best he’d have been hoping for a bench spot.

Hell it’s a pretty strong team all round.

But it’s also fan voted so means nothing really.

 

[H00t]

When North Melbourne went through a process of identifying the issues they've had recently, one of the findings was that they lacked players in that specific age bracket.

If your taking from this season is that we have too many senior players I'm not sure you've looked at our age profile in most games this year. Every round we were one of the youngest teams, and we had the largest volume of players under 50 games - hovering somewhere between 10-13 players in that bracket most weeks. We have too many players on the lower end of the experience bracket, and while we had a reasonable amount on the upper end of the experience bracket we had sweet FA in the middle.

It's cool because we get to see those players develop and we have a sense of investment, but it is a problem when the experience we have is poorly balanced with youth - have a look at our backline against Richmond for example. Every club needs to have a balance of players across all age groups, doesn't matter where they are on the theoretical premiership clock.

You're using JJ as an example, I'm not. He's not in the age bracket I was talking about.

We’ve got a number of players starting to hit that 22-25 age bracket that I’m not sure it’s near as vital to get players in the 25-28 bracket. Compared to if a lot of our players were 20 and under.

Our defence with Sicily and Hardwick has enough experience. It’s just about getting games into the youngsters there.

We need to keep a Breust or a Gunston but we are set otherwise.

It’s been the mids we are lacking leadership despite being our more experienced group.

 

[lethalselbow]

Wonder if Jeka can learn some aggression for the contest in the off season?

As for All Australian, does anyone really care? It's like coach of the year. Clarkson never got the nod, but is arguably the greatest coach in the history of AFL.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

I thought it might be one or two more, but still solid.

Throw in second and third year players, were quiet young still. BGB, Jeka, Maginness, Day,

We’ve got a number of players starting to hit that 22-25 age bracket that I’m not sure it’s near as vital to get players in the 25-28 bracket. Compared to if a lot of our players were 20 and under.

Our defence with Sicily and Hardwick has enough experience. It’s just about getting games into the youngsters there.

We need to keep a Breust or a Gunston but we are set otherwise.

It’s been the mids we are lacking leadership despite being our more experienced group.

Id keep both Bruest and Gunston. Bye bye Omeara and Mitchell.

 

[KermitJagger]

We’ve got a number of players starting to hit that 22-25 age bracket that I’m not sure it’s near as vital to get players in the 25-28 bracket. Compared to if a lot of our players were 20 and under.

Our defence with Sicily and Hardwick has enough experience. It’s just about getting games into the youngsters there.

We need to keep a Breust or a Gunston but we are set otherwise.

It’s been the mids we are lacking leadership despite being our more experienced group.

If it's not important to get players in that bracket, why is the club targeting players in that bracket?

It is most certainly an issue that we have 0 best 22 midfielders between the age of 23 and 28, we've seen that this year. Ad nauseam.

 

[Hawthorn2023]

If it's not important to get players in that bracket, why is the club targeting players in that bracket?

It is most certainly an issue that we have 0 best 22 midfielders between the age of 23 and 28, we've seen that this year. Ad nauseam.

In the process of fixing the mess left behind..

 

[burner1]

When North Melbourne went through a process of identifying the issues they've had recently, one of the findings was that they lacked players in that specific age bracket.

If your taking from this season is that we have too many senior players I'm not sure you've looked at our age profile in most games this year. Every round we were one of the youngest teams, and we had the largest volume of players under 50 games - hovering somewhere between 10-13 players in that bracket most weeks. We have too many players on the lower end of the experience bracket, and while we had a reasonable amount on the upper end of the experience bracket we had sweet FA in the middle.

It's cool because we get to see those players develop and we have a sense of investment, but it is a problem when the experience we have is poorly balanced with youth - have a look at our backline against Richmond for example. Every club needs to have a balance of players across all age groups, doesn't matter where they are on the theoretical premiership clock.

You're using JJ as an example, I'm not. He's not in the age bracket I was talking about.

North have won 9 games in 3 years. We won 8 this year and finished 13th with the biggest development/youth focus we’ve had since maybe 2004. Hardly comparable situations. And I wouldn’t trust norths list analysis given their history.

If (and appears an if) can keep some key senior players (gunston, Breust, Sicily in particular) appears we can remain competitive enough to develop hard and grow the age profile organically without needing to top up to remain competitive (which generally stalls development). It’s a multi year journey.

 

[H00t]

If it's not important to get players in that bracket, why is the club targeting players in that bracket?

It is most certainly an issue that we have 0 best 22 midfielders between the age of 23 and 28, we've seen that this year. Ad nauseam.

I think we are looking at the 25+ age group as that’s where the FA’s are. We also do have a massive age gap. But we are slowly aging past having to fill it up. In 2 years time I don’t see it as an issue at all as long as we keep developing as we have. And it’s not like we are winning a flag in the next two years either.

Geelong are top of the ladder and pretty much none of their mids are in that bracket. I don’t think it’s an age problem with our mids.

 

[KermitJagger]

In the process of fixing the mess left behind..

In a way, I'd say it was probably more the failure of not really hitting with any of the picks through 2013 - 2015. In particular 2015 where we had a couple early and neither are with the club. More than a few sliding doors moments there.

North have won 9 games in 3 years. We won 8 this year and finished 13th with the biggest development/youth focus we’ve had since maybe 2004. Hardly comparable situations. And I wouldn’t trust norths list analysis given their history.

If (and appears an if) can keep some key senior players (gunston, Breust, Sicily in particular) appears we can remain competitive enough to develop hard and grow the age profile organically without needing to top up to remain competitive (which generally stalls development). It’s a multi year journey.

It's not topping up to remain competitive, it's topping up to ensure that we always have a balance of players that are in their peak football years. It is an issue for our midfield that there such a massive gap between our oldest and youngest across pretty much all lines.

I think we are looking at the 25+ age group as that’s where the FA’s are. We also do have a massive age gap. But we are slowly aging past having to fill it up. In 2 years time I don’t see it as an issue at all as long as we keep developing as we have. And it’s not like we are winning a flag in the next two years either.

Geelong are top of the ladder and pretty much none of their mids are in that bracket. I don’t think it’s an age problem with our mids.

Geelong are as atypical as a side can get at the moment, they have one thing and only one thing targeted at the moment - a flag. We're trying to build into a side that can challenge, Geelong are there and are trying to ride it out. They're the last list we should be trying to compare ourselves to.

 

[burner1]

It is most certainly an issue that we have 0 best 22 midfielders between the age of 23 and 28, we've seen that this year. Ad nauseam.

Nash is 24. Moore is 23. Morrison is 23. All in best 22. And outside 22. Worpel is 23 and Bramble is 24.
It’s more quality than age profile.

Jai/Finn 2 years away from your magical 23 range. But Jai is pretty developed for a 21 year old.

 

[burner1]

It's not topping up to remain competitive, it's topping up to ensure that we always have a balance of players that are in their peak football years. It is an issue for our midfield that there such a massive gap between our oldest and youngest across pretty much all lines.

That makes no sense.
If you’re targeting a flag you’re trying to get your age profile right for when you’re contending so your prime movers are in their peak years. It doesn’t really matter how it looks along the rebuild as long as you remain competitve enough to keep developing. Having players in their peak football years while you’re out of the contending is a waste in many respects.

 

[KermitJagger]

That makes no sense.
If you’re targeting a flag you’re trying to get your age profile right for when you’re contending so your prime movers are in their peak years. It doesn’t really matter how it looks along the rebuild as long as you remain competitve enough to keep developing. Having players in their peak football years while you’re out of the contending is a waste in many respects.

It does matter mate, it's part of being competitive enough to keep developing. It's why Melbourne traded in guys like Vince, Lumumba, Hibberd, Garlett and Lewis after their stint of throwing it all to the youth and making a couple of 21 year olds captain failed.

Nash is 24. Moore is 23. Morrison is 23. All in best 22. And outside 22. Worpel is 23 and Bramble is 24.
It’s more quality than age profile.

Jai/Finn 2 years away from your magical 23 range. But Jai is pretty developed for a 21 year old.

Quality comes with time in the system.

I don't have a magical 23 range, I just see the list profile having experience gaps based on the makeup of the teams we're sending out. If we get rid of Mitchell next year and with McEvoy retiring we've got Jaeger as the sole guy through the middle who has played more than 100 games.

All it'd take is for him to be injured and we'd be running out with:

C: Morrison 78 games - Newcombe 29 games - Ward 14 games
R: Reeves 17 games - Nash 50 games - Moore 52 games

 

[H00t]

Geelong are as atypical as a side can get at the moment, they have one thing and only one thing targeted at the moment - a flag. We're trying to build into a side that can challenge, Geelong are there and are trying to ride it out. They're the last list we should be trying to compare ourselves to.

Freo only have Brodie in that age range. Yet just missed out on being top 4 with Serong and Brayshaw doing the heavy lifting.

Players develop at different rates and some last at their best a lot longer than others. So grouping by age doesn’t always make a lot of sense apart from younger generally meaning they’ve got more good footy to come.

For mine it’s about making sure have at least a slightly competitive midfield next year. Not sure many names being tossed around as possible gets while help that.

It will have to come down to internal development. We have the mids on paper coming through to not be as bad as we have been. Have struggled since 2020 to get anything working though.

 

[KermitJagger]

Freo only have Brodie in that age range. Yet just missed out on being top 4 with Serong and Brayshaw doing the heavy lifting.

Players develop at different rates and some last at their best a lot longer than others. So grouping by age doesn’t always make a lot of sense apart from younger generally meaning they’ve got more good footy to come.

For mine it’s about making sure have at least a slightly competitive midfield next year. Not sure many names being tossed around as possible gets while help that.

It will have to come down to internal development. We have the mids on paper coming through to not be as bad as we have been. Have struggled since 2020 to get anything working though.

I'm grouping by experience as much as I am age, and age is normally aligned with experience.

You could make the argument that Brodie was the difference for them this year, and even if you didn't they still have Blake Acres on the wing, Aish rolling through there, Darcy as their ruck. Their midfield is far more balanced than ours - as is their overall age profile. Sure they have a couple of super early picks that have come on fairly quickly but they do have other more experienced heads through there.

We don't just have no elite players in that age/experience bracket, we have no one. Not a single midfielder. It's an issue.

 

[Hawker55]

Nash is 24. Moore is 23. Morrison is 23. All in best 22. And outside 22. Worpel is 23 and Bramble is 24.
It’s more quality than age profile.

Jai/Finn 2 years away from your magical 23 range. But Jai is pretty developed for a 21 year old.

It's not just age though, it's games played as well. Nash has just ticked over 50 games - so yes he's 24 but he's still inexperienced. Similar with Moore. Has Bramble even played 20 games yet? Players aren't really experienced until they're in that 75-125 game range, which for both Nash and Moore is still a couple of years away.

It's why I hate this "youngest average age" rubbish. If everyone comes through the ND then sure it's a metric, but if you have a few players who come through non traditional pathways then looking at age is pointless.

 

[burner1]

It's not just age though, it's games played as well. Nash has just ticked over 50 games - so yes he's 24 but he's still inexperienced. Similar with Moore. Has Bramble even played 20 games yet? Players aren't really experienced until they're in that 75-125 game range, which for both Nash and Moore is still a couple of years away.

It's why I hate this "youngest average age" rubbish. If everyone comes through the ND then sure it's a metric, but if you have a few players who come through non traditional pathways then looking at age is pointless.

Agreed - but note years in afl system has to matter. I note 75-125 games is just as arbitrary if a guy has spent 3-4 years developing at box hill and in and out of side you’d expect them to require less than 100 games to hit their straps.

My post was pointing out the original comments was factually wrong in that we didn’t have any best 22 mids in a certain age range.