Team Mgmt. Talk about the makeup of our list - midfield balance, height profile, endurance runners

[Bunk Moreland]

This bit makes no sense to me?

When did we prefer contested beasts in the last decade? How is Kyle Langford an inside midfielder?

This reads a lot like disgruntled former employee potting the club more than balanced analysis of current state.

Some things are probably on the mark, others just complaining about the club.

Sure we had some good patches in 2018, but we weren't a premiership threat and lacked the personnel, yet it seems Harding is basically arguing that he was right and the new guys are wrong.









So we're a back half team because we're forced to be so, due to lack of ball-winners in the middle to stop the ball being forced back.





Yet apparently we're deliberately a back half team because Rutten wants it to be so? Even though we were a back-half team before Rutten came along?

Wut?

He can talk about the gameplan but the stuff about the list - from both Harding and the writer - are complete bullshit.

It even starts with talk about our 'window' being 2020 - 2022, "the final years for Hurley, Hooker, Bellchambers and Zaharakis". Anybody with half a clue would know that the last two are long gone now - Bellchambers has been dropped this year and how Zaka hasn't is probably our biggest mystery.

Harding also says (negatively) we've changed our list heaps. The most changes we made were at the end of 2017, and he talks about how good things were in 2018?

 

[faible]

Not sure who's saying its a directive? To me its saying it's not working as well as before Rutton got started on his plan with this group - that and the defensic strategy they had in place in 2018 was on the improve.

The way the article is written suggest Harding is criticising the new regime, even though it's based around the same long-running issues we've had for a while now - we're a back half team out of necessity.

 

[CBombers17]

The way the article is written suggest Harding is criticising the new regime, even though it's based around the same long-running issues we've had for a while now - we're a back half team out of necessity.

Have a look at the half of the quote - that you didn't bold - "and at half-forward"

“We’d become a really good pressure team, we played a style that suited us and we used our run off halfback and at half-forward.

To me this alluded to getting the group to apply forward half pressure (and that he believed they were getting there).

He's also claiming there that they were implenting a plan that suited our list. In another part of the interview he suggests that our list isn't up to the style of game Rutten is trying to implement.

That's my take on it anyways.

 

[BrunoV]

He can talk about the gameplan but the stuff about the list - from both Harding and the writer - are complete bullshit.

It even starts with talk about our 'window' being 2020 - 2022, "the final years for Hurley, Hooker, Bellchambers and Zaharakis". Anybody with half a clue would know that the last two are long gone now - Bellchambers has been dropped this year and how Zaka hasn't is probably our biggest mystery.

Harding also says (negatively) we've changed our list heaps. The most changes we made were at the end of 2017, and he talks about how good things were in 2018?

I'd say that Harding is probably more inclined to be gentle on individual players he knows.

The strategy surrounding the list has been all over the place.

We started a rebuild in 2015, decided it was job done 2 years later at the end of 17 and topped up, unbalancing the list significantly, continue with the top up in 18, using 3 first round picks on senior players, and then went ultra long term focusing on 18 year old talls with out first 2 picks at the end of 19 (cleaning out the list cloggers in the process).

What exactly has been the strategy?

That's what I assume he is getting at. The context of the article is the changes in coaching plans and strategy generally spanning the 2017 to 2020 period.

 

[faible]

Have a look at the half of the quote - that you didn't bold - "and at half-forward"

“We’d become a really good pressure team, we played a style that suited us and we used our run off halfback and at half-forward.

To me this alluded to getting the group to apply forward half pressure (and that he believed they were getting there).

He's also claiming there that they were implenting a plan that suited our list. In another part of the interview he suggests that our list isn't up to the style of game Rutten is trying to implement.

That's my take on it anyways.

It was pointing out that in one sentence he acknowledges being a back-half team, because we're forced to be so. Then claiming we're a back-half team by choice.

As I said, I think some of the things he says are on the mark, and others read like disgruntled employee.

If we're trying to implement a game-style that doesn't suit the players on the list, that can mean two things;

1. We've got the right players, but wrong gamestyle.
2. We've got the right gamestyle, but wrong players.

I don't believe we've demonstrated that we've got the right players anytime in the past 5 years to play a sustainable, premiership winning, brand of football.

Harding seems to believe that the game-style he was implementing was the right one, which implies he believes the players on the list were the right ones, therefore what we've done the past few seasons makes no sense. If you take the view that we had the wrong players, and therefore making a game-plan that suits them wasn't going to lead the success, then some of the moves make more sense.

Also, Daniher being injured and maybe going, maybe staying, has likely informed the recruitment on KPP's that didn't seem as much a burning necessity at the end of 2018 as it did by the end of 2019.

Either way, there's simply some moves that make no sense.

In hindsight; Shiel probably doesn't make sense given how much we gave up for a player that whilst a quality player, and has performed well for us, isn't really the type we needed.

Shiel & Smith were both traded in, whilst Parish & McGrath were both drafted, and all 4 are similar kinds of sizes and types of players. And whilst in isolation each one seems ok, as a collective they don't show a considered approach - unless that approach is to draft medium-sized midfielders with similar skillsets.

 

[CBombers17]

It was pointing out that in one sentence he acknowledges being a back-half team, because we're forced to be so. Then claiming we're a back-half team by choice.

As I said, I think some of the things he says are on the mark, and others read like disgruntled employee.

If we're trying to implement a game-style that doesn't suit the players on the list, that can mean two things;

1. We've got the right players, but wrong gamestyle.
2. We've got the right gamestyle, but wrong players.

I don't believe we've demonstrated that we've got the right players anytime in the past 5 years to play a sustainable, premiership winning, brand of football.

Harding seems to believe that the game-style he was implementing was the right one, which implies he believes the players on the list were the right ones, therefore what we've done the past few seasons makes no sense. If you take the view that we had the wrong players, and therefore making a game-plan that suits them wasn't going to lead the success, then some of the moves make more sense.

Also, Daniher being injured and maybe going, maybe staying, has likely informed the recruitment on KPP's that didn't seem as much a burning necessity at the end of 2018 as it did by the end of 2019.

Either way, there's simply some moves that make no sense.

In hindsight; Shiel probably doesn't make sense given how much we gave up for a player that whilst a quality player, and has performed well for us, isn't really the type we needed.

Shiel & Smith were both traded in, whilst Parish & McGrath were both drafted, and all 4 are similar kinds of sizes and types of players. And whilst in isolation each one seems ok, as a collective they don't show a considered approach - unless that approach is to draft medium-sized midfielders with similar skillsets.

I'd say he's pointing strongly towards creating an effective game plan/strategy around the list you have - so in effect they are always the right players.

As we all know these things get tweaked as the list changes. Richmond is the perfect example of all of this really - and yet they didn't do what we are doing to succeed. They did the exact opposite.

 

[faible]

I'd say he's pointing strongly towards creating an effective game plan/strategy around the list you have - so in effect they are always the right players.

As we all know these things get tweaked as the list changes. Richmond is the perfect example of all of this really - and yet they didn't do what we are doing to succeed. They did the exact opposite.

I disagree with him then; if creating the game-plan that suits your current list means you top out as a 12 win / season side, then what's the point?

Richmond had Reiwoldt - Martin - Rance as absolute elite players for their position, in their prime, and now have Lynch - Martin - Grimes (who's probably been a relevation since Rance as to just how good he's become).

Assuming everyone is fit, we'd have Daniher - Shiel - Hurley(?). Take Daniher away and it's probably Stringer up forward, with no obvious dominant KPD or game-breaking midfielder, and Stringer, whilst good, isn't a fully fit Daniher.

Injuries have probably cruelled the potential of the list, but reality says we're about a 12 win / season side with the list and game-plan we had in Harding's time. Something needed to change.

 

[Bombers_95]

HF: Fantasia Daniher Smith
F: Stringer Hooker AMT
McKenna if forward, if at half back then Snelling/Mosquito/Cahill/Laverde

This is the forward line ideally we would get on the park but 3 of those boys (Joey, Raz and Conor) are all under clouds to be at the club next season. So hard to see a quick fix in this area of the ground if we lose all 3. Daniher clearly the most important to keep.

Wouldn't mind in the short term having another look at Francis forward with Hooker. Francis is arguably out of our best backline when Ambrose/Hurley/Ridley and BZT/Hooker if back are fit.

 

[CBombers17]

I disagree with him then; if creating the game-plan that suits your current list means you top out as a 12 win / season side, then what's the point?

Richmond had Reiwoldt - Martin - Rance as absolute elite players for their position, in their prime, and now have Lynch - Martin - Grimes (who's probably been a relevation since Rance as to just how good he's become).

Assuming everyone is fit, we'd have Daniher - Shiel - Hurley(?). Take Daniher away and it's probably Stringer up forward, with no obvious dominant KPD or game-breaking midfielder, and Stringer, whilst good, isn't a fully fit Daniher.

Injuries have probably cruelled the potential of the list, but reality says we're about a 12 win / season side with the list and game-plan we had in Harding's time. Something needed to change.

To me it just means you work with what you have whilst implementing a strategy for future list and game plan improvement. Personally i think what they were doing makes a lot of sense.

I can't make sense of what we have been doing since. Seeing Cahill in the centre square in his second game with Tippa , while inside mids play on the wing week after week is perplexing. They are Rutten's decisions apparently - not Worsfold channeling Sheedy.

 

[faible]

HF: Fantasia Daniher Smith
F: Stringer Hooker AMT
McKenna if forward, if at half back then Snelling/Mosquito/Cahill/Laverde

This is the forward line ideally we would get on the park but 3 of those boys (Joey, Raz and Conor) are all under clouds to be at the club next season. So hard to see a quick fix in this area of the ground if we lose all 3. Daniher clearly the most important to keep.

Wouldn't mind in the short term having another look at Francis forward with Hooker. Francis is arguably out of our best backline when Ambrose/Hurley/Ridley and BZT/Hooker if back are fit.

Francis seems caught in nowhere land currently, if he plays a more loose role and given license to attack then I think he's most damaging behind the ball. If he's playing an accountable role and conservatively, then I think we're not getting the most out of him.

The hope would be BZT can hold down the FB role against the best tall-forward, whilst Francis can be an aggressive McGovern type intercept / rebound role.

I think Hooker has to play forward when he's back, and we hope / pray that Jones / Gown / Crauford / Stewart show some kind of ability to play as a KPF moving forward. Oh and that Daniher gets fit and stays.

 

[faible]

To me it just means you work with what you have whilst implementing a strategy for future list and game plan improvement. Personally i think what they were doing makes a lot of sense.

I've no issue if the coaching panel believes that the game-plan we're implementing is going to be the one that wins a premiership, and that we just need to get the players to be consistent with it. Certainly we've had a lot of injuries this year along with an extremely disrupted season, so it shouldn't be a surprise that it takes time. Harding even said that in 2018 it took half a season for it to start to come good.

I can't make sense of what we have been doing since. Seeing Cahill in the centre square in his second game with Tippa , while inside mids play on the wing week after week is perplexing. They are Rutten's decisions apparently - not Worsfold channeling Sheedy.

Yeah this is bizarre. Play the first season small forward in the centre, whilst a mature body recruited to play in the midfield, plays on the HBF / Wing.

I guess it's about the learnings. If we think Hibberd already has many learnings from his time in the middle at Williamstown, it makes sense to play him on the Wing at AFL level for more learnings.

 

[CBombers17]

I've no issue if the coaching panel believes that the game-plan we're implementing is going to be the one that wins a premiership, and that we just need to get the players to be consistent with it. Certainly we've had a lot of injuries this year along with an extremely disrupted season, so it shouldn't be a surprise that it takes time. Harding even said that in 2018 it took half a season for it to start to come good.



Yeah this is bizarre. Play the first season small forward in the centre, whilst a mature body recruited to play in the midfield, plays on the HBF / Wing.

I guess it's about the learnings. If we think Hibberd already has many learnings from his time in the middle at Williamstown, it makes sense to play him on the Wing at AFL level for more learnings.

A concern i have is in different party's interests. If the Club is all in with this group and a flag tilt (so keep everyone) - but senior players either refuse or can't implement Rutten's game plan successfully - then we could be in for the AFL's stupidest arm wrestle.

There's been enough whispers already and if we don't see improvement/buy-in soon the pressure will build i reckon.

 

[JT_the_Man]

In a perfect world, with everyone at their best, this would be seriously fun to watch.

HF McKenna - Daniher - Stringer
F Tippa - Hooker - Fantasia
+ Langford, Smith spending time down there

... But I think we all know the odds of this happening aren’t much better than pigs flying.

 

[faible]

A concern i have is in different party's interests. If the Club is all in with this group and a flag tilt (so keep everyone) - but senior players either refuse or can't implement Rutten's game plan successfully - then we could be in for the AFL's stupidest arm wrestle.

There's been enough whispers already and if we don't see improvement/buy-in soon the pressure will build i reckon.

Who are our senior players these days though?

The below are the players who have played 100 games, or will reach 100 games played this season (Ambrose is next after Tipungwuti on games played at 87).

We have a fairly inexperienced side where many of our older players are either on the fringes of our best 22 (Bellchambers, Zaharakis) or injured (Hooker, Heppell, Stringer, Daniher)

Our experienced heads are either not playing, or not amongst our best players if they are.

We're in a strange place list-wise, we have a dearth of quality, experienced leaders playing at the moment.

Zaharakis, Hurley, Smith, Shiel, Saad & Merrett are playing 'leaders' in terms of experience, and I wouldn't argue that any of them seem like they're not on-board with the game plan or disgruntled.

 

[BrunoV]

To me it just means you work with what you have whilst implementing a strategy for future list and game plan improvement. Personally i think what they were doing makes a lot of sense.

I can't make sense of what we have been doing since. Seeing Cahill in the centre square in his second game with Tippa , while inside mids play on the wing week after week is perplexing. They are Rutten's decisions apparently - not Worsfold channeling Sheedy.

I think that's what Harding would say we were doing in 2018. The results tend to speak for themselves.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

HF: Fantasia Daniher Smith
F: Stringer Hooker AMT
McKenna if forward, if at half back then Snelling/Mosquito/Cahill/Laverde

This is the forward line ideally we would get on the park but 3 of those boys (Joey, Raz and Conor) are all under clouds to be at the club next season. So hard to see a quick fix in this area of the ground if we lose all 3. Daniher clearly the most important to keep.

Wouldn't mind in the short term having another look at Francis forward with Hooker. Francis is arguably out of our best backline when Ambrose/Hurley/Ridley and BZT/Hooker if back are fit.

That six is a great forward line.

Problem is that’s been our best six on paper for nearly three years now. I doubt they’ve played a single game together.

 

[eth-dog]

That six is a great forward line.

Problem is that’s been our best six on paper for nearly three years now. I doubt they’ve played a single game together.

If you swap Smith with Stewart they played the first 3/4 games of 2018 together.

 

[ant555]

I'd say that Harding is probably more inclined to be gentle on individual players he knows.

The strategy surrounding the list has been all over the place.

We started a rebuild in 2015, decided it was job done 2 years later at the end of 17 and topped up, unbalancing the list significantly, continue with the top up in 18, using 3 first round picks on senior players, and then went ultra long term focusing on 18 year old talls with out first 2 picks at the end of 19 (cleaning out the list cloggers in the process).

What exactly has been the strategy?

That's what I assume he is getting at. The context of the article is the changes in coaching plans and strategy generally spanning the 2017 to 2020 period.

Did we even think we where rebuilding in 2015 ?
I know we had two early picks but that was more on the back of Carlisle leaving and we added Bird in part of that trade. IMO we thought we where still pushing for top 4. We took Mitch Brown late in the ND as well.

 

[ant555]

At the end of the day in 2017 our forward line was.
Daniher 65 goals
Hooker 40 goals
Fantasia 39 goals
Walla 34 goals
Stewart 22 goals
We added Stringer but have managed to lose the rest for various periods. The only constant from this group has been Walla.
It is no wonder we struggle to score.

 

[andleanback]

I'd say that Harding is probably more inclined to be gentle on individual players he knows.

The strategy surrounding the list has been all over the place.

We started a rebuild in 2015, decided it was job done 2 years later at the end of 17 and topped up, unbalancing the list significantly, continue with the top up in 18, using 3 first round picks on senior players, and then went ultra long term focusing on 18 year old talls with out first 2 picks at the end of 19 (cleaning out the list cloggers in the process).

What exactly has been the strategy?

That's what I assume he is getting at. The context of the article is the changes in coaching plans and strategy generally spanning the 2017 to 2020 period.

I think the biggest mistake we made was bringing back both Hurley and Hooker, they both had offers to leave but we felt it was the right thing to do, get them back and pay them overs in a ‘sorry this has happened’ way. If either one had walked we would’ve either got Taranto or Mcluggage at 2 as well as Mcgrath.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Did we even think we where rebuilding in 2015 ?
I know we had two early picks but that was more on the back of Carlisle leaving and we added Bird in part of that trade. IMO we thought we where still pushing for top 4. We took Mitch Brown late in the ND as well.

The Brown and Hartley picks stank of ASADA insurance.

 

[BrunoV]

I think the biggest mistake we made was bringing back both Hurley and Hooker, they both had offers to leave but we felt it was the right thing to do, get them back and pay them overs in a ‘sorry this has happened’ way. If either one had walked we would’ve either got Taranto or Mcluggage at 2 as well as Mcgrath.

I don't know it has to come down to trading Hurley and Hooker. I can understand the club needing to keep its soul. It's pretending we were better than we were and not building via the draft which is the current problem. We definitely could not afford to do both and here we are...

Also, and while I understand your point is the choices and not the players, we were never looking at Taranto, that's directly from Dodoro. Taranto is the anti-thesis of a Dodoro midfielder too much of an inside pig who also runs a 15+ beep test. It was McGrath and then McLuggage/Setterfield.

 

[BrunoV]

Did we even think we where rebuilding in 2015 ?
I know we had two early picks but that was more on the back of Carlisle leaving and we added Bird in part of that trade. IMO we thought we where still pushing for top 4. We took Mitch Brown late in the ND as well.

Maybe the terms rebuilding is too loaded but we were taking high picks as a result of losing one of our best prospects. it's inherently some sort of reset, rekindling, etc.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Did we even think we where rebuilding in 2015 ?
I know we had two early picks but that was more on the back of Carlisle leaving and we added Bird in part of that trade. IMO we thought we where still pushing for top 4. We took Mitch Brown late in the ND as well.

2015 was a year of Hird delusion, really. He thought we were a Top 4 side based on 2013 - tbf we did win 14 games in 2013 despite basically giving up with a few weeks to go - it was by far the best season we've produced.

He thought he could build on that. Without the WADA disaster who knows, perhaps he could have. But the season just imploded.

 

[BrunoV]

2015 was a year of Hird delusion, really. He thought we were a Top 4 side based on 2013 - tbf we did win 14 games in 2013 despite basically giving up with a few weeks to go - it was by far the best season we've produced.

He thought he could build on that. Without the WADA disaster who knows, perhaps he could have. But the season just imploded.

Hird was gone mid-year. Had nothing to do with the recruiting decisions made at the end of the year.