Premiership Team / Squad?

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Hi folks,

A few partially formed ideas and ramblings below. Hopefully the broad point makes sense.

There have been quite a few references at the moment about our depth, that there are multiple options to be our 'bolter' for 2013 and that you could almost throw a blanket over players 20-35 on our list. People finding it very hard to pick their Round 1 team.

There was also an entire thread that showed we have more ex-players on AFL lists than any other club in the competition.

This all got me thinking about how we have developed our list previously, and how we continue to. It seems from the outside that all 40 odd of our players are looked after very well. All develop an excellent fitness base and discipline, there is a healthy coach to player ratio, drafting the last few years has been good, most players seem to develop to a level where they are - at least - a useful AFL player.

Which is all well and lovely.

What I'm wondering though is whether we are wasting resources developing, coaching and investing in players at the bottom end of our list? Players that will never make a significant difference to our fortunes and won't get regular games unless there is a spate of injuries. Who are more likely to end up playing elsewhere.

We hear 'horror stories' from other clubs of players who have been spat out of the system who say that in their last season or two they were basically an outsider at their own club, had been told that they were unlikely to get games, their cards were marked and they just played out their contract while having a kick in the VFL/SANFL.

Is this the way to go though?

We played a huge number of players last season despite having a relatively good injury run and a healthy number of wins. Why is that?

Should our coaches be devoting their time almost exclusively on the Best 26 (or so) rather than spreading themselves across the whole squad? Should the bulk of our salary cap be spent on the Best 26 with some kids making up the remainder, rather than having 35+ "possibles" who could all step in to Round 1 and aren't on minimum wage? Should these 20-35 players be used as trade bait to make incremental changes up the draft order? (even minor changes which is all most of them would generate) rather than keeping them around to get 1-3 games a season or if we get a stack of injuries.

Really, what's the point of deep, deep depth? If your best players get injured you're not going to win anything, so you may as well stink. Being able to prop up the team reasonably well (but not well enough that you win anything significant) when you cop injuries is nice and might get you a finals appearance but does it get us closer to the ultimate prize?

I guess what I'm asking is whether a "boom or bust" approach is better, where you develop a team capable of winning the flag if the planets align (injuries, luck, decent draw) rather than a "stable" approach where you develop a squad that can perform consistently year in, year out and ride a few bumps along the way but maybe can't scale the premiership heights.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

IMO Depth gives a few options that focusing only on your best 26 ignores.

Obviously you hit on the risks of a bad run of injuries, and if you can afford to carry the depth in the salary cap then it is a good insurance policy.

Quality depth players give you more options at trade time to get the player you want that only have 26 quality players does. when you rely more on fewer players you can ill afford to lose any of them in a trade, meaning you cant bring in talent to fill gaps.

I dont think having too much depth is a problem we've had for a long time so we could have also just had a lucky run of recruiting and development that will naturally regress back to the mean.

 

[Carmo]

hmm a few comments

sometimes early draft picks turn out to be duds - watts from melb i think will be an example

sometimes late draft picks and rookies turn out to be gold

sometimes it takes a long time for anyone drafted anywhere to shine, take porplyzia for instance, it was several seasons (maybe a bit less than that) a delisting etc before he was a damaging AFL player. Sewell and Birchall have been in the system for a long time and have been handy players but not buddy or danger like standouts but Sewell especially last year was probably hawthorns best in that final against us.

I guess what I'm saying is I like our approach. You get suprises with players. So you need to give each one a chance to suprise. If we need to give more time to our best 26 then being the powerful club we are (or in theory should be), simply get more resources to do it if you think it will be value, but dont chop at the other end to do this.

Another comment I'll add was that Im sure I've heard several geelong players and coaches refer to the depth they had over the last few years as being a key factor in their success.

In the words of blighty, the season is a marathon not a sprint and I think with a squad where the load can spread instead of coming on to a few because of injuries (who then get burdened and wear down) is not good for finals or injuries or the subsequent season.

Each successive season I've been watching ive grown more and more confident that the strength of the squad is important. Back in the days say late 80's where there was a few dominant vic clubs, those clubs had such powerful playing lists and the game was a bit less professional that they could afford to lose a few players and still belt the weak clubs and the extra load was nothing for the players. Now, with the draft and all the other equalisation policies and the increased professionalism, the margins between clubs is so small that if we have a healthy developed fringe and other clubs dont it is an advantage.

In light of all my comments, I've thought for the last few years that when a club wins a premiership now, the medals should be handed out to everyone who played that season, because its every second of every game in the season that leads to the premiership, not just the team on grandfinal day. Would seem fairer in a Roo 98 situation as well.

 

[pjcrows]

Good post. Requires appropriate analysis which I don't have enough time for tonight.

One point though - the time that previous 'depth players' Smith, Thompson, Sloane, Talia and Petrenko spent playing big finals last year holds them in good stead. I'd hope that players like Lyons, Brown and Crouch get great exposure this year so they are ready to play in a big final if need be. Just like Mitch Duncan, Christensen and Taylor Hunt were for the Cats in 2011.

Our core group has a big crack at a flag this year. I'd expect Dangerfield, Walker, Jacobs and Thompson to be All Australian this year, with Sloane and Talia big chances.

It could very well happen this year.

 

[Elite Crow]

26 is too shallow. That's only 4 injuries.

As for wasting time on the depth. At any one time you are going to have a dozen 1-3 year recent draftees, they are all going to need to be developed. Depending on their position and size they tend to develop at different rates. Someone who is the slow developer might be the late bolter.

Also your going to struggle to develop a club culture if you have the have and the have nots.

But one area where we do struggle with is making cuts to players who have had their time and are really only going to be good players, not great players. I'll give you Reilly as an example. How old is he 26,27? That's a lot of development for what has been one very good season amongst a lot of average ones. Douglas has hadone decent season. Would we have been better off moving them off earlier?

 

[pjcrows]

Knights, Reilly and Douglas have all fit in to the 'What if we offloaded them earlier?' category at some stage. Knights should have been let go years ago, Douglas threatens to tears games apart but for whatever reason can't, and Reilly has redeemed himself and will be vital.

 

[PyroCrow]

Deep depth gives us the best chance to make finals. This gives us (the fans) a reason to get excited every year. As long as people keep coming through the gate and buying memberships the boys club is happy. Don't get me wrong, I will love this club until the day I die, I just think that winning premierships isn't the priority that it should be. I think it was Crow-mo that put it best a few years back, "we would like to win a premiership but we won't take the necessary steps to ensure that we give ourselves the best chance possible" (I'm paraphrasing).
/End rant

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

I agree with the general thrust of your argument, Carl.

Over the last 5 years we have developed a fantastic group of players that will be 20-24 years old at the start of this season.

24: Jacobs, Mackay, Henderson, Martin, Jenkins
23: Dangerfield, Otten, Jaensch, Wright, Petrenko, Sloane
22: Walker, McKernan, Lynch, L. Thompson, Johnston
21: Shaw, Talia, Riley, Smith
20: Lyons, Brown, Grigg, Ellis-Yolmen

Whilst 10 of this group were in our top 22 last season and include most of our key players, we need to adopt a "use em or lose em" approach to the players in bold.

We also have Kerridge and Crouch, both 19, who I believe are ready to step up this season. This means we will have to make some tough calls on some of our older players (26-30) if we are to provide the group above with opportunities.

 

[skoobydoo]

Hi folks,


We played a huge number of players last season despite having a relatively good injury run and a healthy number of wins. Why is that?.

New senior coach.

 

[amer]

Yeah, depth has always been a bit of a laugh. Over a long period the healthiest teams have generally been the ones to take it out, and that's not going to change because, well, your best players are better than your other players.

It is also why I think Neil Craig is an unlucky man. 2006 was a nightmare, all that first choice personnel falling out of the picture. If we're being honest with ourselves we weren't good enough in 2007 or 2008 no matter the coach, not with that forward line or the cats being in the competition, and Neil probably lost the plot after that. I think 06 did his head in to be honest, remembering how many years he had already put into this club. He wasn't fresh. And it counts for a lot when those of the truly successful individuals in this game seem in almost universal agreement that he was, at his best, an excellent, should-be premiership coach. Sheeds, Bomber, Williams, Parkin, Matthews, they're good names.

It felt as if the whole club developed tunnel vision after that debacle. "What? How does that season not result in a premiership?" *butt the wall three more times and capitulate*

Anyway, depth matters insofar as replacing your non-essential (and hence not particularly good) players. That's not hard. Every good side has been lauded for its depth because humans perceive patterns where there aren't any. We think we're seeing a side with great depth when we're simply seeing AFL standard players complementing a great side. You're always weaker when you lose a star, but the synergy of a core of great players has shown that this can be managed, until you lose a few. The credit shouldn't be going to the guys coming in. Armstrong was never a spanner in the works of anything. It was Judd, Cousins, Kerr and Cox always being ready to go at finals time. Their 2007 showed us what happens when those sorts of players go down.

 

[Team DJ]

Like you said, 35 probably a bit much.
Maybe 30?

 

[Tex Support]

What I'm wondering though is whether we are wasting resources developing, coaching and investing in players at the bottom end of our list? Players that will never make a significant difference to our fortunes and won't get regular games unless there is a spate of injuries. Who are more likely to end up playing elsewhere.

Should our coaches be devoting their time almost exclusively on the Best 26 (or so) rather than spreading themselves across the whole squad?

Don't under-estimate the ability of our coaching staff to manage an entire list of players, not just those who would conceivably be in our best 26 right now.

The work involved in developing 'the rest' of our list does not take time or resources away from the work that goes into getting the best out of our main group in the short term. Thats my belief any way.

 

[Team DJ]

26 is too shallow. That's only 4 injuries.

As for wasting time on the depth. At any one time you are going to have a dozen 1-3 year recent draftees, they are all going to need to be developed. Depending on their position and size they tend to develop at different rates. Someone who is the slow developer might be the late bolter.

Also your going to struggle to develop a club culture if you have the have and the have nots.

But one area where we do struggle with is making cuts to players who have had their time and are really only going to be good players, not great players. I'll give you Reilly as an example. How old is he 26,27? That's a lot of development for what has been one very good season amongst a lot of average ones. Douglas has hadone decent season. Would we have been better off moving them off earlier?

30 this year.
Guys like he knights and Douglas, couldve been packaged up with a 3rd round pick, and gotten a late first early second back.

 

[Geoffa32]

In regards to depth I tend to think it is important to have a bit in the key "specialist" roles such as Ruck and Key defender ie FB.

However it a fine line. As we saw with Maric (and in not getting Giles here) your depth specialist player could well be good enough to play at the AFL and yet team structure dictates they play at the lower level.


Midfield depth is fine, but in a good contending side every player "designated" (for want of a better word) to play as a Flanker/Pocket/Wing/Traditional Mid, should be able to play in the middle at some point in the game as part of a rest rotation. Which is something we are approaching now. I do tend to think having a glut of these type of players in the SANFL is a waste.

 

[ftmch]

Don't under-estimate the ability of our coaching staff to manage an entire list of players, not just those who would conceivably be in our best 26 right now.

The work involved in developing 'the rest' of our list does not take time or resources away from the work that goes into getting the best out of our main group in the short term. Thats my belief any way.

This is pretty much my take on it also - economies of scale etc..

 

[Geoffa32]

This is pretty much my take on it also - economies of scale etc..

There are also development coaches.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

The Crows definitely seem to have age on their side. Lots of young guys pushing for spots. This is the only thing that matters to me when I'm thinking about depth. You wan't that competition for places in the side to be a motivating force. I think if you focus too much on just your top 26 players you stand a chance of weakening the playing group as a whole .

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Don't under-estimate the ability of our coaching staff to manage an entire list of players, not just those who would conceivably be in our best 26 right now.

The work involved in developing 'the rest' of our list does not take time or resources away from the work that goes into getting the best out of our main group in the short term. Thats my belief any way.

If the time of the coaching staff is valuable, then the fewer players they have to deal with the better. Not just on the track but watching them in the SANFL, putting together video footage, medical attention etc.

Or if the players get enough coaching as it is, even with all these extra players getting attention too, then do we have too many coaches? Are the players spending too much time at the club? Are they wasting time there?

And it's not just the coaching either. If we're also giving games to players at the bottom of our list, at the expense of others then we are spreading the opportunities too thinly.

24: Jacobs, Mackay, Henderson, Martin, Jenkins
23: Dangerfield, Otten, Jaensch, Wright, Petrenko, Sloane
22: Walker, McKernan, Lynch, L. Thompson, Johnston
21: Shaw, Talia, Riley, Smith
20: Lyons, Brown, Grigg, Ellis-Yolmen

Whilst 10 of this group were in our top 22 last season and include most of our key players, we need to adopt a "use em or lose em" approach to the players in bold.

I like this turn of phrase, and it applies to a lot of our players. Really, what value did we get out of Tony Armstrong? Spent years on our list being developed. Took a while to fill out his frame. Got some AFL games. Probably looked half decent a couple of times. We nursed him through his drink driving incident. Then he went to Sydney for a meaningless trade that didn't improve us.

I know not every player is going to be a win.

These 15 players shared 66 games between them last season. I know team balance is key but wouldn't we be better off spreading those 66 games across (say) six players instead? Actually give them a meaningful run at it, a few games in a row, a chance to adjust and improve, to get used to our structure and our systems?

11 games - Josh Jenkins
10 games - Matthew Jaensch
7 games - Brodie Martin
6 games - Tom Lynch, Shaun McKernan, Andy Otten
5 games - Aiden Riley
3 games - Luke Brown, Jarryd Lyons, Luke Thompson
2 games - Brad Symes
1 game - Lewis Johnston, Sam Kerridge, Tim McIntyre, Richard Tambling

Instead because players 20-35 are "much of a muchness" and all equally deserving of a game, we almost do it by a primary school everyone-gets-a-go mentality.

Do we need to have a harder edge? Do the coaches have a responsibility to put their balls on the line and identify which players are the ones most likely to become quality AFL footballers, and for us to invest more heavily in them?

Keeping everyone happy is nice. But if there are any players on the list above we actually think are going to be good players, they aren't going to stick around for a handful of games. And worse still, if they do stick around and we actually need them later on they will have stagnated in the SANFL. Also, the players above we get to the end of the season and still don't know if they cut the mustard because we haven't seen them enough.

The Crows definitely seem to have age on their side. Lots of young guys pushing for spots. This is the only thing that matters to me when I'm thinking about depth. You wan't that competition for places in the side to be a motivating force. I think if you focus too much on just your top 26 players you stand a chance of weakening the playing group as a whole .

Competition for spots is a double edged sword. A revolving door selection leaves blokes looking over their shoulder and playing without confidence. Especially those new in the team or on the fringes.

It's nice to have competition for spots, especially in preseason, but during the season I'd like to see a stronger focus on the ones our coaches identify as being the most talented.

 

[AFC979810]

I love these types of posts Carl Spackler... Great pre-season thread.

Apologies for my rant -too many different topics in the one thread so i have kind of merged them into one all over the place post...

To your first point about us being able to throw a blanket over the players 20-35 on our list and questioning why we should invest in players who might only play 1-3 games is simple. These 16 players are the depth of our squad and need to be used to come in for injuries and suspensions. Although they are grouped together as depth players they need to be a broad section of players These 16 blanket players need to be evenly distributed to cover for Ruckman / KPF / KPD / Midfielders / Small Defenders/ Small Forwards. Thats 7 positions you need to have at least two backup players for. For example - what if we identify the top 30, invest in them (and not worry about the other 10) and only have 1 KPD as backup? Then suddenly we lose two KPD to injury/trade/suspension etc. Our list will be extremely skewed and unbalanced. If you have a solid group of 16 players across all positions who can all come in and contribute you have a better chance of covering an injury to a player regardless of the type of player that goes down.

Also - the AFL mandates that you must have 40 players on your senior list. As a club that is financially stable, why not invest in all players since we have the money to hire the proper coaching staff. I don't buy the fact you are robbing peter to pay paul by having our coaches work with the lower end of the list. I think it would be a huge waste if of opportunity if we didn't invest in all of our players. All players need to be considered a risk- yes you get situations like Tony Armstrong where you invest money / training / time effort etc and get nothing out of them, but you can also have a situation where you have a Dane Swan type player who comes in at Pick 58 - plays 16 (pretty unimpressive games) during his first four years on Collingwoods list and turns into a superstar.


As to our clubs strategy and list development over the 21 years - I think we have done a very good job as a club. In the 21 years we have been in the league we have two flags, have played in 7 preliminary finals and played in finals 11 of the 21 years. Over the 21 years we are equal 3rd in the league for premierships.
We have never had a top 5 draft pick and have really only had 1 top 10 draft pick work out in Dangerfield (I don't count Philthy) and despite this we have been one of the more successful clubs through our list management strategy.

You refer to 'horror stories' at other clubs in which they ride out their time in the 2nds as depth players till their contract is done and are then delisted / traded. We have done this and will continue to do this (Symes 2012 / Cook & Sellar 2011 / Jacky 2010 etc).

As to my thoughts of list management - I think we have done really well over the past 7 years to lead us to where we are at. In 2005/2006 was our last real crack at and I honestly think the rebuild / restructure of our team started at the end of 2006 with the aim of our next big tilt being either being around 2011 (if all went to plan). I think as a club we identified the fact that our midfield group (Edwards,Roo, Macca, Goodwin) was getting on but still had 4 years left to keep us relevant and competitive. With that in mind we made a real decision to draft KPP from 2006-2009 and then build the midfield group after that so that they would start becoming quality footballers around the same time.

First 2 picks of each draft:
2006 - Sellar / Tippett
2007 - Danger / Otten - *Had Walker as part of scholarship program in this year.
2008 - Davis / McKernan
2009 - Talia / Gunston
2010 - Smith / Lyons
2011 - Crouch / Kerridge

Even though many on this board think we have great depth - i disagree. We have lost too many quality players over the past 3 years (Bock / Davis / Gunston / Maric / Tippett). Our current depth is overstated - in the last 3 years when we have had significant injuries (2010 / 2011) and we were terrible but in 2012 we had an absolute dream run with injuries and we made a prelim. During this run we had our top 20 players play the majority of the season together (Thompson 23games /Danger 25/ VB 25 / Jacobs 24/ Sloane 24 / Rutten 25 / Talia 23 / Porps 22 / Tippett 21/ Vince 20 / Walker 19 / Reilly 25 / Doughty 24 / Wright 22 / Mackay 23 / Douglas 19 / Callinan 23 / Johncock 19 / Petrenko 23 / Doughty 24) This settled lineup allowed for 2 spots to be open each week for us to play other players on our list. This is an absolute rarity. It allowed the younger / fringe players to come into a fit and stable side with not much pressure (or opposition attention) and perform. Our depth in 2013 will be tested. We have lost two of our best 22 (Doughty and Tippett) and have only replaced them with one ready made AFL player (Crouch - who could be anything). I realise that Jenkins can slot into Tippetts role, however our team is still weakened by this move depth wise.

As to your overall question (I think) - what is the direction we should take... Here are my thoughts:

I think our window is open. I feel our best will match the best, but also that we are still young and wont be able to put in consistent performances like the Geelong and Brisbane Dynasties (and I think this should be the goal)... In my opinion we have 3 glaring deficiencies in our squad:

1. Ruck support for Jacobs - If he goes down - have your cyanide pills ready. Who will take over? Angus Graham? Shaun McKernan? I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth. We will need to either get a very capable part time ruckman or another solid backup.

2. Centre Half Back - I strongly feel that Truck has 1-2 years in him and after that Talia will take up his position at CHF. We currently do not have a quality CHB unless Luke Thompson / Kyle Hartigan can somehow make the position their own.

3. Smaller - rebounding - defender - I have lost faith in Jaensch, Stiffy can no longer play this role, Reilly has 2 years left, Smith has moved to the midfield and Doughty has gone. Hopefully this position can get filled by Luke Brown - otherwise we will need to draft / trade for this spot.

To answer your original question - I believe most teams in the recent era have tried to build their lists through the stable method, with the only real exception being Crazy Voss (and we saw how that worked out). The Crows are no different. I expect us to sit down at the end of the year and realise how week our Ruck stocks are and make proactive moves to change this. I would love us to go after a younger gun ruckman through trade. Looking at our list we are going to have an abundance of quality midfielders and I feel we should look to move a Kerridge / Lyons type midfielder to go after a Brodie Grundy type.

 

[Team DJ]

If the time of the coaching staff is valuable, then the fewer players they have to deal with the better. Not just on the track but watching them in the SANFL, putting together video footage, medical attention etc.

Or if the players get enough coaching as it is, even with all these extra players getting attention too, then do we have too many coaches? Are the players spending too much time at the club? Are they wasting time there?

And it's not just the coaching either. If we're also giving games to players at the bottom of our list, at the expense of others then we are spreading the opportunities too thinly.


I like this turn of phrase, and it applies to a lot of our players. Really, what value did we get out of Tony Armstrong? Spent years on our list being developed. Took a while to fill out his frame. Got some AFL games. Probably looked half decent a couple of times. We nursed him through his drink driving incident. Then he went to Sydney for a meaningless trade that didn't improve us.

I know not every player is going to be a win.

These 15 players shared 66 games between them last season. I know team balance is key but wouldn't we be better off spreading those 66 games across (say) six players instead? Actually give them a meaningful run at it, a few games in a row, a chance to adjust and improve, to get used to our structure and our systems?

11 games - Josh Jenkins
10 games - Matthew Jaensch
7 games - Brodie Martin
6 games - Tom Lynch, Shaun McKernan, Andy Otten
5 games - Aiden Riley
3 games - Luke Brown, Jarryd Lyons, Luke Thompson
2 games - Brad Symes
1 game - Lewis Johnston, Sam Kerridge, Tim McIntyre, Richard Tambling

Instead because players 20-35 are "much of a muchness" and all equally deserving of a game, we almost do it by a primary school everyone-gets-a-go mentality.

Do we need to have a harder edge? Do the coaches have a responsibility to put their balls on the line and identify which players are the ones most likely to become quality AFL footballers, and for us to invest more heavily in them?

Keeping everyone happy is nice. But if there are any players on the list above we actually think are going to be good players, they aren't going to stick around for a handful of games. And worse still, if they do stick around and we actually need them later on they will have stagnated in the SANFL. Also, the players above we get to the end of the season and still don't know if they cut the mustard because we haven't seen them enough.


Competition for spots is a double edged sword. A revolving door selection leaves blokes looking over their shoulder and playing without confidence. Especially those new in the team or on the fringes.

It's nice to have competition for spots, especially in preseason, but during the season I'd like to see a stronger focus on the ones our coaches identify as being the most talented.

5 Senior listed blokes and 1 rookie listed guy that could easily go from the list. Without losing too much IMO.

Would still give us 30 guys of strong depth not including guys like Crouch Laird CEY and Hartigan that all look like they could play a few games this year.

Gets us a bit of extra cap space to, to load up on extensions to guns.

 

[Vader]

I like this turn of phrase, and it applies to a lot of our players. Really, what value did we get out of Tony Armstrong? Spent years on our list being developed. Took a while to fill out his frame. Got some AFL games. Probably looked half decent a couple of times. We nursed him through his drink driving incident. Then he went to Sydney for a meaningless trade that didn't improve us.

Come on.. Tony Armstrong was and remains the closest thing to a "nothing" player that exists. We got LJ in return, who kicked 57 goals in the SANFL last year, but looks unlikely to force his way in to the AFL team any time soon due to the number of forwards ahead of him in the pecking order (Tex, JJ, Smack, Lynch - though the claims of the latter pair are somewhat dubious).

If you're trading a "nothing" player out, it's unfair to expect much more than a "nothing" player in return..

These 15 players shared 66 games between them last season. I know team balance is key but wouldn't we be better off spreading those 66 games across (say) six players instead? Actually give them a meaningful run at it, a few games in a row, a chance to adjust and improve, to get used to our structure and our systems?

11 games - Josh Jenkins
10 games - Matthew Jaensch
7 games - Brodie Martin
6 games - Tom Lynch, Shaun McKernan, Andy Otten
5 games - Aiden Riley
3 games - Luke Brown, Jarryd Lyons, Luke Thompson
2 games - Brad Symes
1 game - Lewis Johnston, Sam Kerridge, Tim McIntyre, Richard Tambling

Instead because players 20-35 are "much of a muchness" and all equally deserving of a game, we almost do it by a primary school everyone-gets-a-go mentality.

To a certain extent, the "everyone gets a go" thing was driven by the fact that we had a new coach who wanted to see every player on his list exposed to AFL football at least once, so he could get a finer appreciation of what they have to offer. There's only so much you can learn from watching them at training and playing in the SANFL. AFL games are played with a speed and intensity which is not matched by either training or the SANFL. Sando needed to observe the players under AFL game conditions. This is why the likes of Tambling, LJ, Kerridge, McIntyre, Symes, Lyons and Brown got their games.

It's also worth remembering that almost 2/3 of the players named made their AFL and/or club debuts last year - JJ, Lynch, Brown, Lyons, LJ, Kerridge and McIntyre. Giving them a game or two is helpful for their development, as they now know the level they need to reach if they wish to make a long term career out of AFL football. For the most part (ie other than JJ) they weren't ready to play more than a handful of AFL games.

It's also worth pointing out that we had a ridiculously low number of injuries last year - leading to an all-time low number of positions being opened up for blooding the youngsters. Unfortunately for them, some of those openings coincided with times when the youngsters in question were themselves injured. Thus players like Lyons, who was deserving of greater opportunities, was restricted to just 3 games.

Do we need to have a harder edge? Do the coaches have a responsibility to put their balls on the line and identify which players are the ones most likely to become quality AFL footballers, and for us to invest more heavily in them?

Premierships are not won solely by the best 22 players. They are won by the club with the depth in their top-30 to cover the loss of "best 22" players. Then there are the developing kids, outside the top-30 but expected to make the best 22 within a few years. Anyone who doesn't meet either of those criteria is a list clogger and needs to be culled as quickly as possible - Tambling, Symes, Martin & Jaensch meet this qualification as far as I'm concerned.

Keeping everyone happy is nice. But if there are any players on the list above we actually think are going to be good players, they aren't going to stick around for a handful of games. And worse still, if they do stick around and we actually need them later on they will have stagnated in the SANFL.

Quality players get fast tracked - that's why JJ played 11 games last year (helped by Tippett's concussions and Walker's suspensions) and I'm guessing Crouch will play 15+ this year - just as Smith did before him. Note that this only happens for the minority of players who have extreme potential which justifies the fast tracking of their development.

But most players don't come into the team that way - at any club. Most get a game or two in their first few years, to give them a "taste" and help them set their goals (in the knowledge of the level they need to attain). Once they develop physically and reach the standard expected, then they are given greater opportunities until they become established members of the best 22. These players know what their development path is - and they also know that it wouldn't be any different at any other club, so why would they consider leaving?

Also, the players above we get to the end of the season and still don't know if they cut the mustard because we haven't seen them enough.

Now you're trying to have a bob each way. On the one hand you're saying we need to focus all our attention on the top 25 (or so) players, leaving the rest of them to rot (yes, I'm taking a bit of poetic license here).. on the other hand you're saying we need to play everyone so we know what they have to offer.

This is exactly what happened last year... The best players were selected every week. When injury/suspension vacancies opened up, they were generally given to the most talented of the kids. However, by the end of the season the only players who hadn't been tried were 1st and 2nd year players who the club knew weren't ready for AFL football just yet. Symes was given 2 games to prove himself, before being given his marching orders at the end of the year and Sando now has a better picture of what his other players are capable of.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Come on.. Tony Armstrong was and remains the closest thing to a "nothing" player that exists. We got LJ in return, who kicked 57 goals in the SANFL last year, but looks unlikely to force his way in to the AFL team any time soon due to the number of forwards ahead of him in the pecking order (Tex, JJ, Smack, Lynch - though the claims of the latter pair are somewhat dubious).

If you're trading a "nothing" player out, it's unfair to expect much more than a "nothing" player in return..

I didn't think it was possible for anyone to miss a point so badly.

Have you read the thread at all? How on earth do you extract praise for Armstrong from what I posted?

That he's a "nothing player" is exactly the point I was making. A "nothing player" that we had on our list for four years, coached him, developed him, invested in him, helped him through personal issues and gave a handful of games to.

This thread is about us spending too much time improving these sort of players who are never going to be any value to us.

Want to go back to the OP and start over?

To a certain extent, the "everyone gets a go" thing was driven by the fact that we had a new coach who wanted to see every player on his list exposed to AFL football at least once, so he could get a finer appreciation of what they have to offer. There's only so much you can learn from watching them at training and playing in the SANFL. AFL games are played with a speed and intensity which is not matched by either training or the SANFL. Sando needed to observe the players under AFL game conditions. This is why the likes of Tambling, LJ, Kerridge, McIntyre, Symes, Lyons and Brown got their games.

Yeah, I don't think so
In the preseason, yes. But not after we became Top 4 candidates.

Now you're trying to have a bob each way. On the one hand you're saying we need to focus all our attention on the top 25 (or so) players, leaving the rest of them to rot (yes, I'm taking a bit of poetic license here).. on the other hand you're saying we need to play everyone so we know what they have to offer.

No I'm not.

I'm saying we have to make harsher, more intuitive and ballsy calls on some of the players in our stable. Using Armstrong as an example again, did we really need to give him 14 games to find out that he was just ok?

And the ones we are genuinely unsure about - Martin, Jaensch and co - an extended run would prove them one away or another. If Brodie Martin for instance played a dozen games and by the end of it was still patchy and inconsistent, we could put a line through him. If he only plays a handful he is retained because the 'memories of that St Kilda game' are not offset by enough evidence to show it was a one-off.

This is exactly what happened last year... The best players were selected every week. When injury/suspension vacancies opened up, they were generally given to the most talented of the kids. However, by the end of the season the only players who hadn't been tried were 1st and 2nd year players who the club knew weren't ready for AFL football just yet. Symes was given 2 games to prove himself, before being given his marching orders at the end of the year and Sando now has a better picture of what his other players are capable of.

Symes a perfect example.

Surely those 2 games were better going to Kerridge or Lyons (if they were fit at the time, can't remember). Symes was getting delisted. We almost felt guilted into selecting him because he was burning up the SANFL so much, and we kept telling everyone that SANFL form matters. Our club gained nothing from Symes playing those 2 matches.

Now.... 2 matches, who cares? But when this happens regularly it starts to add up. When a team is sniffing around the top four and has few injuries as we did last season it is even more important to be discerning about who gets games, because there are fewer opportunities.

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

I would like to nominate Vader for the list management position at the Crows. If he was in charge we would have off loaded at least another 12 players at the end of last season.

 

[Elite Crow]

I would like to nominate Vader for the list management position at the Crows. If he was in charge we would have off loaded at least another 12 players at the end of last season.

And kept Doughty

 

[AFC979810]

And kept Doughty

So true... Who would want a 237 game champion who was best 22 under 3 coaches?

I much prefer the big footy list management style. Play Danger / Sloane / Walker / Thompson / Talia and 17 rookies.