Opinion Rating Players

[Peninsula Boy]

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.

Everyone seems to be straw manning me. Who said cull hard?

I'm not saying that it should be purely kids over veterans.

I'm saying that I'd pick a young guy over Rory Atikins.
I'd give Anastasopoulos a go over Francis Evans or Jed McEntee.

Anyone would think that no one has ever made it from the rookie list or mid-season draft ever!!!

List cloggers have virtually no utility in a team.
If you need Rory Atkins pushing you on your 3km run, you've got bigger problems.

In the end, it is probably just the normal Bigfooty, I have a different definition of a word but I'm going to nail you anyway with a bit of the old straw man to bring it home.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

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.

But it worked a treat on Championship Manager.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Sack the A graders!

 

[Willsy10]

Did I start this thread?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[dirty2]

A= top 10% in the AFL. (Example - JHF)
B= excellent just not top tier. (SPP)
C= solid AFL player. (Logan Evens)
D= muh. (McEntee)

 

[FishingRick04]

Isn’t the point really, to develop as many of those players who aren’t A’s up the food chain as much as possible? No first team will be full of A Graders, except for Geelongs “dynasty”*

 

[JimmyBC]

Need a different grading system it's too conflicted with making the A grade as opposed to being an A grader.

It's keeping me up at night this.

 

[Rash]

A= top 10% in the AFL. (Example - JHF)
B= excellent just not top tier. (SPP)
C= solid AFL player. (Logan Evens)
D= muh. (McEntee)

Butters much better example

 

[FishingRick04]

Need a different grading system it's too conflicted with making the A grade as opposed to being an A grader.

It's keeping me up at night this.

Doesn’t champion data do this anyway? Rates the players into elite etc

 

[JimmyBC]

Doesn’t champion data do this anyway? Rates the players into elite etc

I guess so but it's metric driven so you'll end up with guys with poor skills being rated elite.

 

[PJ Power]

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.

Quoted to highlight this point specifically. The calibre or potential to play in a winning finals series that leads to a winning grand final side is key - i.e., not just coming in for a GF and playing a one-out-of-the-box game but also playing in multiple winning finals beforehand (e.g., Toby Thurstans or 2004 Dom Cassisi). If a listed player can't be classified as such, then they are a depth player at best and if they have a negative effect on our playing fortunes or the development or opportunities given to younger players with more potential, then they are what I would consider a list clogger.

Finlayson and Ratugolea are examples of depth players IMO. I can't see either of them playing in enough winning finals and then being premiership players under any coaching regime though.

McEntee IMO is a list clogger. Not only can I never see him playing in a winning finals series and GF, but when he does play, he has too many games where he has a neutral or even negative effect, and as of this year if he is being selected, it will almost certainly be at the expense of other developing players with more potential.

 

[TeeKray]

Personnel is overrated. You need half a dozen or so top line players but after that it's splitting hairs and the real difference comes down to coaching/culture. I note that all of the players derided here as being not good enough to win finals are more than good enough to regularly win home and away games against the same teams they then get blasted off the park against in finals.

 

[PJ Power]

Personnel is overrated. You need half a dozen or so top line players but after that it's splitting hairs and the real difference comes down to coaching/culture. I note that all of the players derided here as being not good enough to win finals are more than good enough to regularly win home and away games against the same teams they then get blasted off the park against in finals.

Mental fortitude and winning mindset of players is important though. A large part of that is dictated to by a coaching regime, football club environment and culture but players like Ratugolea and Finlayson weren’t able to contribute to winning finals teams with the Cats or Giants either which is why I think it’s about them along with the coaches. Granted, almost all of our other guys are really hard to judge in high pressure stakes because of Hinkley and our now inherent finals frailty. Even JHF, Butters and Rozee haven’t yet shown a capacity to be at their best in finals.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

A= top 10% in the AFL. (Example - JHF)
B= excellent just not top tier. (SPP)
C= solid AFL player. (Logan Evens)
D= muh. (McEntee)

I like it. Simple. Easy.

I just want to point out that ratings are subjective but get out the flame thrower if you want to prove your manhood.

GENERATIONAL - Buddy, Dusty, Judd, Gaz, Hird. There is less than a handful of these guys playing the game. The Hornet could become one of these.
ELITE- AA - high impact. Rozee, Butters, Dangerfield, If they have a good season, they should be very close to AA selection. Awesome players.
EXCELLENT - AA squad and around that area. Just below that elite player. A very good player. Might jag a AA or two during their career. Aliir, Willie Rioli last year, Bergman, late year Georgiades
GOOD PLAYERS - some impact. Players you are happy to have on your team. current Wines, Logan Evans, Willem Drew, Jase Burgoyne, Jordon Sweet
ROLE PLAYERS - neutral impact. You are looking to upgrade this position if possible. Byrne-Jones,
BAD PLAYERS - net negatives, negative impact. Jed McEntee.
YOUNG PLAYERS - minimal games, unsure of potential. Visentini, Hugh Jackson, Anastasopoulos, Lorenz, Sinn, Whitlock.

BACKUPS - not good enough for the 22. There are good backups and bad backups. Soldo, Finlayson, Ratugolea, Mead even though he gets games playing forward but out of position.
Soldo is a great backup in ruck.
Xavier Walsh is a poor backup as a tall back just because he's young and inexperienced. He might come in and be awesome but we don't know either way.
LIST CLOGGERS - not good enough to be in the 22 and should be delisted. McEntee, Atkins, Boak. List cloggers can still be a bit of a decent player but hold up getting games into young guys who a whole lot more potential.

I think people see list cloggers as I see backup.
You can also be either a backup or list clogger and one of the other ratings. You can be a list clogger and a role player. You can be a good player and a backup.

The coaching staff is constantly trying to improve all of the players into the next tier of ratings.

In a sport like footy, you really need high end talent because it takes the burden off the other tiers. Everything trickles down and makes it easier for your other players to do their thing.

 

[Coobk001]

Everyone seems to be straw manning me. Who said cull hard?

I'm not saying that it should be purely kids over veterans.

I'm saying that I'd pick a young guy over Rory Atikins.
I'd give Anastasopoulos a go over Francis Evans or Jed McEntee.

Anyone would think that no one has ever made it from the rookie list or mid-season draft ever!!!

List cloggers have virtually no utility in a team.
If you need Rory Atkins pushing you on your 3km run, you've got bigger problems.

In the end, it is probably just the normal Bigfooty, I have a different definition of a word but I'm going to nail you anyway with a bit of the old straw man to bring it home.

I'd pick Tommy A, in the gameday 25 ahead of the likes of a Rory. However you need the Rory types on your list and that's what I'm saying. Having a Rory push the players to drive better standards at training is valuable. Having your main ruckman training against another senior ruckman, rather than just pushing around an 18 year old is valuable. Having your key backs defending on a quality forward, and not just some junior that might not have much craft is important. Having a Magpies reserves team, where there are some senior players to balance out emotion and keep players on track is important, those same senior players can add some size and help young ones from just being bullied, they can also often be too good for SANFL, but not good enough for AFL, and their performance can bring other kids into the game. Kids who wouldn't get a touch, and/or wouldn't get the opportunity to develop themselves if they were just surrounded by other kids getting smashed each week.

List cloggers/older players/players that don't have an AFL future, are still important on AFL lists no matter which way you cut it.