Opinion Rating Players
- Thread starter Willsy10
- Start date
- Tagged users None
chiwigi
I’ll make tears from your Wines.
It’s someone who plays for the A grade team on a majority basis.
manureid
Laziest Poster on Figbooty
Exactly. Did not think this was subjective at all. When you play sport at any club if they say, can all the A graders stay back after training, that is your first team. Seems simple yet somehow in here many seem confused?
- Jan 14, 2008
- 11,697
- 7,052
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Boston Celtics, Man City, NY Jets
Yeah, I get that. I always thought A Grade footballer being the top 6ish footballers in your team, especially when the lists are 38 or whatever, means 23 A Graders and 15 B Grade footballers on each list, doesn’t really make A Grade footballer all that note worthy.
Please tell me more about this A/B grade thing
I split the players who play every week into A graders and B graders. The B graders are good honest foot soldiers who play their role, but the A graders are the match winners. I have SPP on my A graders list
Scodges
Club Legend
- Sep 22, 2023
- 1,418
- 1,674
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
The way I grade the players on the team are:
generational - consistent, high impact
elite - AA - high impact
excellent - AA squad and around that area - good impact
good players - some impact
role players - neutral impact
bad players - net negatives, negative impact
young players - yet to get a game
backups - not good enough for the 23
list cloggers - not good enough to be in the 23 and should be delisted
generational - consistent, high impact
elite - AA - high impact
excellent - AA squad and around that area - good impact
good players - some impact
role players - neutral impact
bad players - net negatives, negative impact
young players - yet to get a game
backups - not good enough for the 23
list cloggers - not good enough to be in the 23 and should be delisted
List cloggers are the worst on lists.
I would always pretty much go with youth.
With list cloggers, you have an average player at best whose ceiling has been found. I would prefer a young, developing player because you never know what they could be.
TeeKray
Moderator
Port Adelaide - Allir Allir Player Sponsor 2021
Port Adelaide - Kane Farrell Player Sponsor 2021
Port Adelaide Forum Tipping Champion
Bring Back the Bars
Port Adelaide - Connor Rozee Player Sponsor 2020
Port Adelaide - Zak Butters 2019 Player Sponsor
Port Adelaide - Jack Watts Player Sponsor 2018
Port Adelaide - Riley Bonner Player Sponsor 2016
- Moderator
- #13
One of the many quirks of the pissant sport known as AFL is that players are judged to have reached the limit or close to the limit of their potential by the age of about 21. These players are replaced by 'young' players with 'more upside', as though 21 isn't actually extremely young in the scheme of things. If a 21 year old is drafted they're considered a 'mature age pick'. Players develop at different rates - physically, mental maturity, skill development - and the one size fits all approach of giving them 2-3 years to show they can be a first team player or kicking them out the door never to be seen again is totally not best practice.
It needs to be balanced with some depth though. Ideally depth players can either play multiple roles, or the rarest ones (like ruck or utility) so you can have less of them.
I personally would generally give a bloke four years and even an extra year or two for talls and was shocked to see all of the guys from the 2022 draft get delisted. Sometimes it is plainly obvious that guys don't want to work hard though.
Late last year when Narkle and Fevans were playing, I would've at least given Anastasopoulous a look in as both were destined to be chopped liver by the end of the year. You know what you are getting with Narkle and Fevans but Anasta could've bolted like Logan Evans.
Sometimes there is a bit of good luck and sometimes some bad luck. Hugh Jackson, who is touted on this board, might get the axe without playing a game this year.
I'm not a big fan of list cloggers. Back up, I can handle. Finlayson is good backup.
You have to really be good at knowing if a player has that calibre of playing and winning a grand final. It is one of the things that Hinkley is not good at. He prefers to play spuds and duds and we usually draft in areas he struggles to develop.
In the end, I am a bit ruthless with my ideas of list development.
Yeah, that's why I also have back up players and don't really like list cloggers.
Finlayson and Ratugolea are good backup.
Soldo is really good backup.
But yeah, a bit of balance is needed.
- Jan 14, 2008
- 11,697
- 7,052
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Boston Celtics, Man City, NY Jets
Jackson is at the crossroads this year, hopefully he can stay fit. Could be another Magpies B&F winner delisting within 24 months.
It might be a similar story to Jake Pasini. Close to a gig with the A's but a few things didn't fall in place and then goneski.
I've always liked Hugh Jackson so I hope he gets to show us what he can do.
It's bonkers.
For comparison, the NFL is a bigger league, a much bigger business (i.e., more resources for talent scouting and development), has a bigger talent pool, and drafts players with 2-4 years of college experience under their belt. They STILL wind up with a bunch of undrafted players on rosters, and a bunch of those UDFAs go on to have decent (sometimes excellent) careers.
The AFL's attitude to age and talent is all-pervasive. It informs everything from where the development opportunities are (and where the opportunities and dollars dry up) to how fans talk about list management (i.e., selling players for speculative picks).
You sound like Knightmare giving everyone club an F for not drafting Patrick Voss in the top 10
(not really, i agree with you. I just like laughing at Knightmare)
Doctor Feel
Shitposter In Chief
Can we rate them ugliest to most handsome?
Are you trying to summon Expat?
Doctor Feel
Shitposter In Chief
Let's just go with a binary would/wouldn't
- Mar 26, 2007
- 21,513
- 46,419
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- SA Spurs, Anaheim Ducks, White Sox
No.
This totally overlooks the fact that without solid experience around your kids they will fail to develop. There's a reason GC have never been able to rise up into the 8. There's a reason why our depth looked so horrible the last few years.
List cloggers are important.
It is extremely important in the modern day list management era that you are able to balance the list, maintain a healthy balance of young kids coming through and developing, with good quality senior players around them. It is absolutely pivotal to their development and the strength of the list. It improves development through better training levels, more competitive confidence building performances, etc.
Going into a season with 20 kids under 20 because you cleared out the deadwood, is a recipe for failure. You only get to replace those delistees, with other pick #100+ kids in rookie drafts or the like, and most of those kids equally are cloggers and not worthy of a spot. On a list you really want 2-4 of those project players coming through, a handful of senior players around them, and a handful of top end talent developing and knocking on the door + a strong core 25.
The 'cull hard' mentality is a very simplistic viewpoint, and constantly proven as a direct path to failure.
Last edited:
Similar threads
