Analysis System, buy in and talent

[barrackers]

Brown was offered a contract but opted to exercise his FA rights.

Yeah, but as a restricted free agent we also elected not to match StKilda's contract offer.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Talent issue. Highly talented in some aspects of play, but major let down in the talent of kicking at goal or to a teammates advantage. Elite disposal has never been high on Hines attribute priority list.

Never mind hine.

Kicking the ball and missing by ten meters?
That's killing us.

Practice practice practice

 

[jackcass]

Yeah, but as a restricted free agent we also elected not to match StKilda's contract offer.

As much about the term as the $$$'s as I understand it.

 

[Scodog10]

The feedback thus far has been surprising TBH. I expected the rating of talent on the list to be polarising and I believe it's most likely due to list imbalances rather than overall talent, but I didn't expect it to be such a focus.

Whilst all three are important to go deep in September talent is the one that can be covered, IMO. Referencing GWS and Richmond again the talent gap between the two is vast yet they sit on the same number of wins. Carlton again lack the talent, but they find ways to safeguard against that by being strong in the other two areas. I guess I was hoping to generate a lot more discussion around the more important and controllable areas and maximising the talent on the list.

Based on the feedback I think I might have gone a little too far in my assessment on the talent parameter too. There's been some outlandish undervaluing of our talent, but on the whole those that rate us in that 6-10 bracket on the ladder are probably more on track which would be reflected in a ranking under between 6 and 7 out of 10. I remain strong of the belief that we've underperformed given the depth of talent we possess through the midfield, but I can't help wondering what Don Pyke and co could do with our list because I hazard a guess that we would be in the top 8 in 2017.

 

[jackcass]

Talent issue. Highly talented in some aspects of play, but major let down in the talent of kicking at goal or to a teammates advantage. Elite disposal has never been high on Hines attribute priority list.

I'm sure if there were 2 equal players, 1 an elite user, the other an okay user, he'd opt for the 1 with elite disposal. Ditto pace. Just not sure where he rates specific measures relative to others.

Do you bank on an elite user who struggles to find the footy and hope that you can improve his ball winning ability to an acceptable standard, or do you opt for the elite ball winner with lesser disposal and hope you can improve that? I'm not sure you can cure either issue completely and the further you fall down the draft order the more these issues weight against each other.

I consider Oxley a very good kick, one of the best on our list, hasn't helped us a lot this year though.

 

[Scodog10]

Talent issue. Highly talented in some aspects of play, but major let down in the talent of kicking at goal or to a teammates advantage. Elite disposal has never been high on Hines attribute priority list.

KPF and skill based traits have not been his specialty that's for sure! He's nabbed three AFL standard KPF's in his 13 drafts which is a disgraceful record when you consider two of those were FS'.

 

[noideaatall]

Buy in is fine, it should be at this stage of a coaches career. Our list may have talent but seems unbalanced. We do alright at getting the ball but fail to use it well and give away easy goals. The last two may be related.

 

[left at home]

At the start of the season l would have said talent closer to 7, but know more like6-6 1/2
By in around 7 1/2 to 8
System can be a hard one to factor in, cause we have played some really good footy and some poor. In saying that around 5.5 to 6

 

[loki04]

Our forward efficiency has been woeful. Putting that down to talent deficiency does not stack up. Take our first choice forwards this year: Elliot, highly talented, great kick and finisher. Fasolo, highly talented, great Kick normally but has had the yips, Moore, highly talented, normally a great kick for goal.. has also had the yips, Reid, highly talented, great Kick, DeGoey, highly talented and a decent kick.. Then there's Blair... Moving on quickly..

That is a lot of talent in our forward line actually and a lot of guys you would call talented when it comes to kicking the footy.

Mental with many of them low on confidence, fatigue plays a part but we are just as bad 1 min in with the ball in as we are 20mins in.

 

[loki04]

I'm sure if there were 2 equal players, 1 an elite user, the other an okay user, he'd opt for the 1 with elite disposal. Ditto pace. Just not sure where he rates specific measures relative to others.

Do you bank on an elite user who struggles to find the footy and hope that you can improve his ball winning ability to an acceptable standard, or do you opt for the elite ball winner with lesser disposal and hope you can improve that? I'm not sure you can cure either issue completely and the further you fall down the draft order the more these issues weight against each other.

I consider Oxley a very good kick, one of the best on our list, hasn't helped us a lot this year though.

Oxley is (a good kick) and looks a good kick but can quite often kick over the target or to their feet, so I don't agree he is our best kick. His kicks certainly looks nice when travelling through the air though.

And of course their is a balance which is what I'm saying Hine has had a penchant for high ball winners with average to haphazard skills. He imo is probably of the opinion a good game plan can cover the poor kicking flaws working withh MM for so long and with MM game plan we certainly did.

There needs to be a better mix atm the balance is weighted towards grunt and hardwoking ball winners very little towards classy xfactor pacey types that arent afraif of their own shadow (oxley and WHE).

 

[loki04]

The feedback thus far has been surprising TBH. I expected the rating of talent on the list to be polarising and I believe it's most likely due to list imbalances rather than overall talent, but I didn't expect it to be such a focus.

Whilst all three are important to go deep in September talent is the one that can be covered, IMO. Referencing GWS and Richmond again the talent gap between the two is vast yet they sit on the same number of wins. Carlton again lack the talent, but they find ways to safeguard against that by being strong in the other two areas. I guess I was hoping to generate a lot more discussion around the more important and controllable areas and maximising the talent on the list.

Based on the feedback I think I might have gone a little too far in my assessment on the talent parameter too. There's been some outlandish undervaluing of our talent, but on the whole those that rate us in that 6-10 bracket on the ladder are probably more on track which would be reflected in a ranking under between 6 and 7 out of 10. I remain strong of the belief that we've underperformed given the depth of talent we possess through the midfield, but I can't help wondering what Don Pyke and co could do with our list because I hazard a guess that we would be in the top 8 in 2017.

Focus is on talent because it is a major weakness and glaring when you overview our games the lack of quality disposers. We have strong talent in certain positions or roles.

Richmond might have a lot of B grade talent but its solid and on top of that they have 3 match winners in Martin, Reiwoldt and Rance. Cotchin a A grader Prestia close to A maybe B+. The talent they have is reasonable.
All capable of swinging games. Collingwood at present don't have one, maybe Treloar but his kicking lets him down to much to be relied on and is getting caught inside the contest to often.

GWS might have a lot of talent but this year in particular they have also had a massive injury list, previous year they made a prelim where we the Tigers?. It takes time for a team of talent to gain cohesion and play as a team GWS are only just starting to solidify that and thats while fending off constant player raids. Carlton have half a team pre GWS, we have 3, etc....They aren't your typical team to gauge/base an argument off.

 

[doppleganger]

So people think the talent on the list is in the top 6 of the AFL? Giving a 7 plus rating would say yes.

I'd say our talent is about on par with 7th to 12th placed sides.

This is what I struggle with too, it seems way too many people have bought into the PR spin from Pert etc. and set their expectations way too high.

You look at our list...that we went into 2017 with.

Forwards we were relying on a kid Moore, a bloke coming back from a back injury Elliott, Reid who played his best football down back and Fas a flighty forward who still struggles for consistency. WHE an unkown, and we were potentially going to rely on White if Moore went down and guys like Blair and Mayne...not very appealing for 2017.

Backs our supposed blue chip defender Reid aint what he used to be (finds himself up forward now), who our second KPD was going to be was anybody's guess at the start of the season. Our main options for small defenders are all constantly injured - Sinclair, Varcoe and Ramsay and a couple of our HB options Berg and Langdon both were returning from long injury layoffs.

We would have been ranked bottom 6 for forwards and defenders entering 2017. We all hope for the best and for Moore to blossom into a 50 goal forward, for Billy to have a full season, Reid to recapture his AA best etc.

A good midfield, but unforbut not much chop up forward and relying on journeymen down back.

What about the Doggies, and they've apparently got a coaching genius.

Like all coaches, without the cattle playing well the coach can't do much. And there is only so much a coach can actually do, majority comes down to the individual.

 

[Greening Magic]

Oxley is (a good kick) and looks a good kick but can quite often kick over the target or to their feet, so I don't agree he is our best kick. His kicks certainly looks nice when travelling through the air though.

And of course their is a balance which is what I'm saying Hine has had a penchant for high ball winners with average to haphazard skills. He imo is probably of the opinion a good game plan can cover the poor kicking flaws working withh MM for so long and with MM game plan we certainly did.

There needs to be a better mix atm the balance is weighted towards grunt and hardwoking ball winners very little towards classy xfactor pacey types that arent afraif of their own shadow (oxley and WHE).

This part of the list has had a major impact on our play.
Too many 'one pacers' on the list. Phillips, Sidebottom, Greenwood, Aish, Pendlebury, Wills, etc all in the same team with not much pace on the periphery.
Adelaide has the Crouch brothers and Sloane that aren't quick but add Cameron, Smith, Douglas and Knight and all of a sudden they have pace to complement them.
Richmond have plodders but have added pace leaving the likes of Miles in the 2nds.
It's why Murdoch gets a game at Geelong even though he's a spud, he gives them much needed pace but overall they aren't a quick team.
Sydney aren't a pacey team but I get the sense it doesn't hurt too much at the SCG but they've failed at the pointy end at the G and I think their lack of pace and reliance on Buddy can expose them at times. (I wouldn't mind relying on Buddy)

Pace allows you to be less precise with your kicking sometimes, our lack of pace puts added pressure on an area of our game that is already weak, kicking.

Speed, we desperately need speed. (And a Josh Jenkins type wouldn't hurt )

 

[Justlokan]

How do you explain Balme, every coach he has worked with their team improves with his input........ except Buckley.Just look at how Hardwick is going.

Balmey moved on because he was sidelined by the Gubby appt. I thought I'd already said that.
What makes you think it was Buckley related?

 

[Scodog10]

Focus is on talent because it is a major weakness and glaring when you overview our games the lack of quality disposers. We have strong talent in certain positions or roles.

Richmond might have a lot of B grade talent but its solid and on top of that they have 3 match winners in Martin, Reiwoldt and Rance. Cotchin a A grader Prestia close to A maybe B+. The talent they have is reasonable.
All capable of swinging games. Collingwood at present don't have one, maybe Treloar but his kicking lets him down to much to be relied on and is getting caught inside the contest to often.

GWS might have a lot of talent but this year in particular they have also had a massive injury list, previous year they made a prelim where we the Tigers?. It takes time for a team of talent to gain cohesion and play as a team GWS are only just starting to solidify that and thats while fending off constant player raids. Carlton have half a team pre GWS, we have 3, etc....They aren't your typical team to gauge/base an argument off.

Talents fine you rated it 6.5 yourself.

Create the system, generate the buy in and nurture the talent. Can anyone say with confidence that we've done enough in the first and last areas? Not for mine.

Edit: that's kind of the point re Richmond. Their talent, like ours, is debatable enough for them to finish bottom 6 last year. They didn't overhaul the list talent wise, but have rocketed up the ladder. Talent, whilst definitely a factor, doesn't deserve the emphasis it's receiving here, IMO. Especially given it's rated by most as above average.

 

[swoop42]

Our talent mustn't be to bad if we can have good days and beat Geelong, draw with Adelaide and lose in the final minute to GWS.

Our system can be questioned when we lose to all of Carlton, St Kilda, Essendon and Melbourne.

 

[chop_me]

Honestly, I don't care if Buckley's system would work with better players. The system is supposed to cater the talent at the coach's disposal.

If we don't have the talent, then Buckley's persistence with his system is an error in judgment on his part.

For example, I understand that forward pressure is important to Buckley's game plan. However, when your best "pressure" forward is Blair, then surely the system must change.

 

[jackcass]

Oxley is (a good kick) and looks a good kick but can quite often kick over the target or to their feet, so I don't agree he is our best kick. His kicks certainly looks nice when travelling through the air though.

And of course their is a balance which is what I'm saying Hine has had a penchant for high ball winners with average to haphazard skills. He imo is probably of the opinion a good game plan can cover the poor kicking flaws working withh MM for so long and with MM game plan we certainly did.

There needs to be a better mix atm the balance is weighted towards grunt and hardwoking ball winners very little towards classy xfactor pacey types that arent afraif of their own shadow (oxley and WHE).

Players who are afraid of their own shadows don't back into oncoming packs.

 

[doodles98]

Talents fine you rated it 6.5 yourself.

Create the system, generate the buy in and nurture the talent. Can anyone say with confidence that we've done enough in the first and last areas? Not for mine.

Edit: that's kind of the point re Richmond. Their talent, like ours, is debatable enough for them to finish bottom 6 last year. They didn't overhaul the list talent wise, but have rocketed up the ladder. Talent, whilst definitely a factor, doesn't deserve the emphasis it's receiving here, IMO. Especially given it's rated by most as above average.

Here here... And in a world of 18 teams, salary caps and drafts, talent is the hardest to fix and the least controllable.

 

[Scodog10]

Here here... And in a world of 18 teams, salary caps and drafts, talent is the hardest to fix and the least controllable.

Spot on. Until the FA system is fixed* and the trade window is open for most of the year I find it difficult to give it the weighting some have.

*meaning any player nominated for the ND and overlooked automatically becomes a FA available 12 months of the year.

 

[ThePhantom777]

We continue to retain an underperforming player, who is clearly a poor influence on others, for reasons known only to insiders.

Who?

 

[doodles98]

Never mind hine.

Kicking the ball and missing by ten meters?
That's killing us.

Practice practice practice

If Adams practices enough he might get to a point where he only misses by ten Meters at some stage in his career. Did we somehow not notice this problem in his game (and Treloar) before we recruited him?

 

[Scodog10]

Who?

The Ox is slow, but the earth is patient?

 

[Brad Goodman]

Rather than marks out of ten, I'll give us the following scores:

System - bottom 4
Talent - enough to win 13-14 games if the system and buy in are there
Buy in - better than most, but I think it's much more of a defining factor of success of soccer than it is in AFL.

Richmond showing that system can mask talent, us showing that talent can't mask system (if you know what I mean).

 

[MarkT2]

It starts at the top. We are a poorly run club so we make poor decisions. When the president appoints the coaches, CEOs and board members - who themselves are supposed to appoint the president- you eventually get the mediocrity without escape that we have. There is no circuit breaker in that equation. If the reviews are bona fide they will highlight this but I am very sceptical.

We are underperforming financially (relative to our resources) and on field. The latter follows from the former but to be more specific we are poorly coached and we lack talent. We have been poorly coached for far too long and slipped much further back than we would have had we had due process in performance assessment but we don't. We lack talent because we have over paid for trades in and been under paid for trades out. We have sacrificed draft picks and selected poorly with the ones we have retained and don't have the number of high quality kids coming through that some sides moving up the ladder above us have.

It isn't good enough to outperform a couple of sides. That buys you 12th spot.