Opinion Stephen Silvagni

[HARKER]

How would a "more cohesive" club have avoided it?

By sacking someone different? By never employing SOS in the first place? By moving someone into a different role? By not allowing SOS the autonomy he had in the first place? By not drafting their list manager's kids?

It's naive to think that there must have been a way to come out of this with all staff still employed in the same roles and everyone happy with eachother. Life isn't that neat and tidy.

If I knew that we approached Beatson mid-year, I'm going to presume that Silvagni knew about it also.
Maybe the approach was designed for SOS's consumption, but it's just not nice.

Many things we've done in recent years have not been nice, nor complementary to the type of club we sell ourselves to be; Bound by Blue, but each to their own. Maybe all the people that have departed our club deserved a kick up the arse.......or maybe we should look in the mirror every now and then.

 

[Ricky Mott]

SOS isn't anything more special than other clubs list managers.

He got super lucky when he came back to us because he was the first person in that kind of roll at the club that was given full licence to gut the list and attempt a full rebuild.

Everyone else before him was constrained big time by other internal factors and views.

Other club list managers didn’t start with the pathetic list so started with in 2015

 

[Arr0w]

Bingo

 

[Bostonian]

Other club list managers didn’t start with the pathetic list so started with in 2015

That list wasn't far removed from finals in 2013. Won 7 games in 2014 and finished above 5 other clubs.

Plenty of clubs bottomed out with bog average lists and built them up from the bottom.

 

[Bostonian]

What do you believe is the primary cause of our “shallow list” ?

Not being able to bring in decent FA's and not being able to find decent young talent consistently on players outside the first round.

We brought in too many recycled hacks that had next to no upside.

 

[Bostonian]

Chief, can we get an eyeroll reaction stat?

And one for triggered people.

 

[Ricky Mott]

Not being able to bring in decent FA's and not being able to find decent young talent consistently on players outside the first round.

We brought in too many recycled hacks that had next to no upside.

Cuningham pick 23, Fisher pick 27. Williamson pick 61, Silvagni pick 53, DeKoning pick 30. Just to name a few.

 

[Robertio]

Not being able to bring in decent FA's and not being able to find decent young talent consistently on players outside the first round.

We brought in too many recycled hacks that had next to no upside.

Sos was bringing in two players in via the first round in most of the drafts that he was involved. From what i see Dow and Obrien will be fine.

 

[Blue__Balls]

do you think SOS was being overuled on list decisions because of the conflict of interest?

Opinion only, based on what I've heard and what makes the most sense to my mind:

I reckon the decision to not renew SOS's contract took place somewhere around the time Bolton finished up. Not sure exactly what prompted it - could have been Liddle, could have been Lloyd, could have been Agresta. If my guess on the timing is off, it could also have been been Teague after he was given the HC position. However it happened, I think that once that decision was reached, the club would have wanted to incrementally shift some of what SOS would typically handle to others. Hence increased weight to other voices on the List Management sub-committee.

I honestly don't think there was a major CoI incident (ie. SOS giving his kids a contract they didn't deserve, or SOS refusing to draft a player who he perceived to be a threat to one of his kids positions in the side). If there was, we'd have heard a hell of a lot more noise about it. Instead, I think it was a realisation that there were going to be more and more decisions coming up that would/could influence Jack/Ben/Tom(?), and that rather than waiting for something to go wrong, the timing (ie. end of SOS's contract, "completion" of the list rebuild) made it a good time to part ways. Maybe there were complementary issues around shared voice and input from the team, or maybe those issues arose after his exit was tabled and SOS got his hackles up.

I'm on record a few times as saying I value what SOS has done, would love someone with his cahones running our LM team moving forward, but can also see value in shifting our reputation towards "Carlton is a good club to work with".

I think it's incredibly unlikely that Liddle has strolled into the club, pushed up the membership numbers, tried to recruit Ellis without consulting anyone, then shoved SOS out the door because SOS shut down the Ellis conversation. That seems remarkably childish and petulant for a CEO, and I really don't think the board would have gone along with it if that were the sequence of events.

 

[Gethelred]

And one for triggered people.

???

I'm curious; how is 'triggered' a reaction one would associate with themselves? Would you use it?

I curse the day the word - and the concept - entered the common lexicon; way to diminish the concept of arguing, to completely absent yourself from anything resembling respect for another point of view.

"You triggered, bro?" Guess I am.

 

[Gethelred]

Opinion only, based on what I've heard and what makes the most sense to my mind:

I reckon the decision to not renew SOS's contract took place somewhere around the time Bolton finished up. Not sure exactly what prompted it - could have been Liddle, could have been Lloyd, could have been Agresta. If my guess on the timing is off, it could also have been been Teague after he was given the HC position. However it happened, I think that once that decision was reached, the club would have wanted to incrementally shift some of what SOS would typically handle to others. Hence increased weight to other voices on the List Management sub-committee.

I said - at the time of Bolton's firing, and for the months preceding it - that it's very difficult to hang Bolton without putting up a noose right next to him for SOS as well; given that SOS's hard rebuild strategy had left Bolton without hard mature bodies (which make a real difference in the scale and likelihood of defeats in an AFL context) and his strategy of KPP first left him extremely short in the midfield and thus vulnerable to injury.

I really don't think it's as complex as all that though. I think it's as simple as SOS wanting his record as sole arbiter of what talent came inhouse standing as a reason why he should be allowed to serve as he wished until his contract expired, and the others - Liddle, Agresta, Lloyd, potentially Brodie, Playfair, Power - insisting on shifting to a more modern department layout. This provides the perception that would allow for both sides to observe what they've released into the public space; SOS feels like he was being undermined, and the club feels like this was the right decision regardless of fan discontent.

 

[Stamos]

I said - at the time of Bolton's firing, and for the months preceding it - that it's very difficult to hang Bolton without putting up a noose right next to him for SOS as well; given that SOS's hard rebuild strategy had left Bolton without hard mature bodies (which make a real difference in the scale and likelihood of defeats in an AFL context) and his strategy of KPP first left him extremely short in the midfield and thus vulnerable to injury.

Teague proved (instantly) that this was not the reason for Bolton's failure, and is entirely unfair on SOS. How can somebody honestly complain about the lack of senior bodies when Ed Curnow was wasting away in the forwardline?

 

[Gethelred]

Teague proved (instantly) that this was not the reason for Bolton's failure, and is entirely unfair on SOS. How can somebody honestly complain about the lack of senior bodies when Ed Curnow was wasting away in the forwardline?

... so Teague's movement of Curnow and Murphy to the midfield - with a fit and firing Cripps, Walsh and Gibson - that 2018 (in which we were left vulnerable to injury by SOS going for KPP first) didn't happen???

It isn't solely the lack of senior bodies I was objecting to, and that is a misrepresentation of my argument. It is the fact that, across his first 3 seasons, SOS picked players at a rate of 1 KPP, 1 small; this is despite the fact that you only play 5/8 KPP in a team of 22. He also went for the smaller, more talented players, rather than the ready to go; this exacerbated the problem.

Do not mistake what I am saying for criticism; I am more than content with the players he chose, and I recognise the logic in making the choices he made. This is not the same as saying that he didn't leave Bolton vulnerable, because of course he did.

 

[Stamos]

... so Teague's movement of Curnow and Murphy to the midfield - with a fit and firing Cripps, Walsh and Gibson - that 2018 (in which we were left vulnerable to injury by SOS going for KPP first) didn't happen???

It isn't solely the lack of senior bodies I was objecting to, and that is a misrepresentation of my argument. It is the fact that, across his first 3 seasons, SOS picked players at a rate of 1 KPP, 1 small; this is despite the fact that you only play 5/8 KPP in a team of 22. He also went for the smaller, more talented players, rather than the ready to go; this exacerbated the problem.

Do not mistake what I am saying for criticism; I am more than content with the players he chose, and I recognise the logic in making the choices he made. This is not the same as saying that he didn't leave Bolton vulnerable, because of course he did.

You said SOS's list strategy left Bolton vulnerable, and that he should be in almost as much trouble at the time of Bolton's sacking.
While 2018 certainly happened, that's not why Bolton was sacked. It was going 1-11 this year, and losing the players that got him sacked. Teague proved instantly that the list was better than what they were showing this year under Bolton. And if Bolton had have won the games he should have in 2019, he wouldn't have been sacked regardless of our 2 win 2018 season.

 

[HARKER]

It isn't solely the lack of senior bodies I was objecting to, and that is a misrepresentation of my argument. It is the fact that, across his first 3 seasons, SOS picked players at a rate of 1 KPP, 1 small; this is despite the fact that you only play 5/8 KPP in a team of 22. He also went for the smaller, more talented players, rather than the ready to go; this exacerbated the problem.

Do not mistake what I am saying for criticism; I am more than content with the players he chose, and I recognise the logic in making the choices he made. This is not the same as saying that he didn't leave Bolton vulnerable, because of course he did.

Boltons strategy also left Bolton vulnerable.

Our list management was confusing at times and the call-up of senior bodies in O'Shea, Mullett, Shaw, Bugg, Goddard, Fasolo and the like did nothing for the whole. I think we'd finally improved early this year and then later this year for the selections. It's as though we finally got it right........and.....see you.

 

[Gethelred]

You said SOS's list strategy left Bolton vulnerable, and that he should be in almost as much trouble at the time of Bolton's sacking.
While 2018 certainly happened, that's not why Bolton was sacked. It was going 1-11 this year, and losing the players that got him sacked. Teague proved instantly that the list was better than what they were showing this year under Bolton. And if Bolton had have won the games he should have in 2019, he wouldn't have been sacked regardless of our 2 win 2018 season.

The other side of the coin is, in close games there is nothing truly special about particular teams and particular coaches. Truly, it comes down to a coin toss which way things go. The 'pundit' Ryan Buckland wrote about it, a few years ago on the Roar; his knowledge about Carlton notwithstanding, his metrics involving teams in close wins/losses indicated that regardless of how good one's record is in the short term, all teams average around 50% in close games regardless of coach or ladder position.

You can go on subjectively about 'lost the players' and what Teague proved until the cows come home; opinion doesn't make it so.

 

[Gethelred]

Boltons strategy also left Bolton vulnerable.

Our list management was confusing at times and the call-up of senior bodies in O'Shea, Mullett, Shaw, Bugg, Goddard, Fasolo and the like did nothing for the whole. I think we'd finally improved early this year and then later this year for the selections. It's as though we finally got it right........and.....see you.

That's fair, but saying it alone caused his downfall is an untrue statement to make.

 

[HARKER]

That's fair, but saying it alone caused his downfall is an untrue statement to make.

I don't know for sure either way.

I do though know that not all players were behind Bolton the way it was portrayed on this board at times, and his 'methods' didn't exactly unite players.
That's sort of also understandable as when things start going belly-up, it's hard work keeping yourself buoyant. Frustrations manifest in not-so-good ways.

Anyway, everyone made mistakes and will continue to do so, but it's not for the mistakes being made that makes for the issue but for the way we deal with the situation thereafter.

 

[Stamos]

The other side of the coin is, in close games there is nothing truly special about particular teams and particular coaches. Truly, it comes down to a coin toss which way things go. The 'pundit' Ryan Buckland wrote about it, a few years ago on the Roar; his knowledge about Carlton notwithstanding, his metrics involving teams in close wins/losses indicated that regardless of how good one's record is in the short term, all teams average around 50% in close games regardless of coach or ladder position.

You can go on subjectively about 'lost the players' and what Teague proved until the cows come home; opinion doesn't make it so.

Are you going to blame a coin toss on Bolton's half time command to go defensive against the Hawks, and thus blow a 6 goal lead?
It's not an opinion.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I'd say we have a shallow list with 1-2 elite players and a huge amount of question marks that will determine how far the list can go.

If a person rates the likes of Dow, O'Brien etc as being reasons why the list will be top shelf then they will differ from people who don't rate such players that highly on what they have seen in them thus far.

I understand this part. It’s a little like Melbourne back a fair few years now. Most people rated players like Trengove and Grimes extremely highly. Players like Cael Morton at Stockers age had 22 games of over 20 touches four of which were in the thirties. These three were probably pigeon holed as future A graders. I’m also sure there are examples of the exact opposite where teams have had players not rated highly prove everyone wrong.
I personally rate this group very highly but I wouldn’t call out anyone just yet who disagrees.
For me my confidence only comes from three players. Cripps, Walsh and Weitering. Those guys look like they are players you can already build a side around with extreme confidence. 3-4 others have to step up and join them this season. (Doc will be the first if his knee holds up) I think we are extremely close but not there just yet.

 

[Gethelred]

Are you going to blame a coin toss on Bolton's half time command to go defensive against the Hawks, and thus blow a 6 goal lead?
It's not an opinion.

You're doing it again; you're misrepresenting what I said because it disagrees with you.

What I said was that those close games are a coin toss - as an analysis I read demonstrated - and we were unlucky to be on the wrong side of a few, which led to us being 1-11. You're using a singular example when the argument is collective; we had multiple losses by small margins in the first half of this year, are you going to mount a 'poor coaching' argument for each of them? Is Teague a poor coach because he lost several games by less than a kick?

For the last time: I think that Bolton was left vulnerable by some of the decisions SOS made. Does that exclude the fact that he, Brendon Bolton, also contributed to his own demise with his potentially excessive developmental mindset? No, it does not, so why are you either insisting that it does?

 

[Arr0w]

Are you going to blame a coin toss on Bolton's half time command to go defensive against the Hawks, and thus blow a 6 goal lead?
It's not an opinion.

Stamos, pointless cherry picking one game, surely you know by now what Bolton was trying to do. Right or wrong his method was about the future.

Teague thus far is the complete opposite and while wins are satisfying, hopefully that is not at the expense of the bigger picture

 

[Opine]

Not being able to bring in decent FA's and not being able to find decent young talent consistently on players outside the first round.

We brought in too many recycled hacks that had next to no upside.

So in Blues case, it’s “shallow list“ is due to SOS’s poor LM, yet in Giants case, it’s stong list is due to development and everything post Silvagni, rather than SOS’s effective list management. Does this seem a bit opportunistically inconsistent to you?

 

[Gethelred]

So in Blues case, it’s “shallow list“ is due to SOS’s poor LM, yet in Giants case, it’s stong list is due to development rather than SOS’s effective list management. Does this seen a bit opportunistically inconsistent to you?

Sounds like Buzzto Desilva, that Giants posters that would not give SOS credit if he bought him a house.

"I don't like the wallpaper, and weatherboards are very seventies..."

 

[Robertio]

Sounds like Buzzto Desilva, that Giants posters that would not give SOS credit if he bought him a house.

"I don't like the wallpaper, and weatherboards are very seventies..."

I got a slight hunch his other name could be Grotto, no substance, no brains and no takey any notice.