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

[fishardansin]

Below is a list of our player by year born in. A question for the list management gurus.

Is the dearth of players born in 99 and 00 a problem? I'm not just saying that it would be nice to have more quality players at that age. I'm saying, lets imagine by some miracle our next coach gets the most out of the players and we're challenging in two years time. The fact that there will be a lot of retirements from players before 1998, will we fall of a cliff quicker?

1991	Phillips 201cm 62
1992	Heppell 189cm 213
1993	Shiel 182cm 199
1994	Stewart 199cm 78 Stringer 192cm 172 Hind 180cm 64
1995	Kelly 190cm 131 Merrett 179cm 184
1996	Laverde 193cm 91 Waterman 182cm 22 Wright 203cm 109 Langford 192cm 107
1997	Parish 180cm 132 Snelling 175cm 50 Francis 193cm 54 Guelfi 184cm 83 Redman 187cm 80
1998	McGrath 180cm 111 Zerk-Thatcher 195cm 29 Draper 205cm 43 Ridley 195cm 68
1999	Ham 182cm 45
2000	Caldwell 183cm 34
2001	Jones 196cm 26 Martin 190cm 21 McBride 197cm 0 Durham 185cm 27 Bryan 203cm 6
2002	Cox 200cm 27 Reid 202cm 8 Perkins 188cm 39 Brand 195cm 0 Baldwin 193cm 4 Eyre 198cm 0 Menzie 181cm 2
2003	D'Ambrosio 178cm 8 Voss 194cm 0 Hobbs 183cm 17 Wanganeen 175cm 5 Lord 180cm 1

 

[fishardansin]

... and for a giggle about where Collingwood go from here ..

Year	Essendon	Collingwood
1988		Pendlebury 191cm 358
1989
1990		Howe 190cm 219 Roughead 200cm 201
1991	Phillips 201cm 62	Sidebottom 184cm 289 Cox 211cm 94
1992	Heppell 189cm 213	Elliott 178cm 155
1993	Shiel 182cm 199	Mihocek 192cm 102 Madgen 192cm 49 Hoskin-Elliott 186cm 181 Adams 181cm 183 Crisp 190cm 200
1994	Stewart 199cm 78 Stringer 192cm 172 Hind 180cm 64	Grundy 203cm 177
1995	Kelly 190cm 131 Merrett 179cm 184	Cameron 204cm 53
1996	Laverde 193cm 91 Waterman 182cm 22 Wright 203cm 109 Langford 192cm 107	Moore 203cm 126 De Goey 188cm 137 Maynard 189cm 161
1997	Parish 180cm 132 Snelling 175cm 50 Francis 193cm 54 Guelfi 184cm 83 Redman 187cm 80	Noble 180cm 69 Wilson 194cm 7 Johnson 193cm 9
1998	McGrath 180cm 111 Zerk-Thatcher 195cm 29 Draper 205cm 43 Ridley 195cm 68	Brown 179cm 70 Lipinski 187cm 81 Daicos 178cm 77
1999	Ham 182cm 45	Kreuger 196cm 7 Brown 192cm 27 Murphy 192cm 33
2000	Caldwell 183cm 34	Carmichael 189cm 7 Quaynor 180cm 59 Kelly 194cm 3
2001	Jones 196cm 26 Martin 190cm 21 McBride 197cm 0 Durham 185cm 27 Bryan 203cm 6	Bianco 188cm 22 McCreery 186cm 35 Dean 195cm 0 Ruscoe 193cm 17
2002	Cox 200cm 27 Reid 202cm 8 Perkins 188cm 39 Brand 195cm 0 Baldwin 193cm 4 Eyre 198cm 0 Menzie 181cm 2	Chugg 180cm 2 Macrae 187cm 11 McMahon 197cm 0 Henry 189cm 25 Begg 197cm 3 Poulter 193cm 12 Ginnivan 184cm 28 McInnes 193cm 6
2003	D'Ambrosio 178cm 8 Voss 194cm 0 Hobbs 183cm 17 Wanganeen 175cm 5 Lord 180cm 1	Daicos 182cm 25 Draper 186cm 0 Murley 178cm 0 Harrison 178cm 0

 

[Lore]

Below is a list of our player by year born in. A question for the list management gurus.

Is the dearth of players born in 99 and 00 a problem? I'm not just saying that it would be nice to have more quality players at that age. I'm saying, lets imagine by some miracle our next coach gets the most out of the players and we're challenging in two years time. The fact that there will be a lot of retirements from players before 1998, will we fall of a cliff quicker?

It’ll take 3-4 years for the players born before 1998 to mostly retire. The youngest of those are 25 and could conceivably play into their early-mid 30s if we don’t delist and trade them all. Hopefully a few of them stick around and contribute well for a bit longer.

The dearth of players born in 1999-2000 isn’t a problem by itself, although we will probably backfill it via trade/fa/mature rookies just as we did with 93-95. If we do that via trade then we rob Peter to pay Paul, in the sense we have less picks in this draft which creates another gap later on. Saga penalties that we kept trying to mitigate and top up instead of looking to the future.

 

[Ants]

I know things went s**t this year, but am I the only one who remains bullish about our list? I don't EXPECT it to work out, but I think a lot of the key ingredients of being a very good side are there, providing one of the young tall backs comes good.

Clearly, the game plan and keeping the list together are important, but we have such a good list of young players and Merrett, Parish, and 2MP probably have 5 good years AFTER 2023. We also have Stringer and Shiel as match winners for a year or two after 2023 as well.

I say that because all of the kids we have picked up in this rebuild should be coming together in 18 months' time in my opinion. Another midfielder, two small forwards plus a gun FA or two in the meantime and I think we're ready to rock n roll.

I'm bullish on the potential, its everything we do as a club after the players walk through the door I'm pessimistic about. Can we develop them and keep them on the park? Can we be actually patient and not try and rush via top-up (again)? Hell, will we identify who we don't want and move them on as soon as possible?

I'm also bullish in the context that I expected us to miss finals this year and really see us pushing from 2024 or so onwards.

A good example of my concerns. Why were we making major changes to our gameplan this year? Why weren't those changes made last year? I expected tweaking of our gameplan to try and fix the issues, but wholesale changes? Why not when Rutten first took over, so we'd finish low then, and then as its embedded and the kids get experience/bigger bodies, improve? Hell, if Rutten believed in it, why move away from it? We seem to have these issues with gameplans every year after competing in finals. Which implies that the coaches either don't have the will, or the board backing, to push through the changes and take the hits in the win/loss column for a year or two. Until we get the willpower to do that, how can any coach materially change things?

 

[fishardansin]

It’ll take 3-4 years for the players born before 1998 to mostly retire. The youngest of those are 25 and could conceivably play into their early-mid 30s if we don’t delist and trade them all. Hopefully a few of them stick around and contribute well for a bit longer.

The dearth of players born in 1999-2000 isn’t a problem by itself, although we will probably backfill it via trade/fa/mature rookies just as we did with 93-95. If we do that via trade then we rob Peter to pay Paul, in the sense we have less picks in this draft which creates another gap later on. Saga penalties that we kept trying to mitigate and top up instead of looking to the future.

I had a look around. If we got Stoker, Collier-Dawkins and then went for the big Ben King trade at the end of next year, with Caldwell we will have 4 players in that bracket.

Collingwood is screwed with 11 players 30 and over next year. As well as 16 players from the last three drafts with only 2 of them being any quality. Three if you count the blonde nob.

 

[ant555]

I'm bullish on the potential, its everything we do as a club after the players walk through the door I'm pessimistic about. Can we develop them and keep them on the park? Can we be actually patient and not try and rush via top-up (again)? Hell, will we identify who we don't want and move them on as soon as possible?

I'm also bullish in the context that I expected us to miss finals this year and really see us pushing from 2024 or so onwards.

A good example of my concerns. Why were we making major changes to our gameplan this year? Why weren't those changes made last year? I expected tweaking of our gameplan to try and fix the issues, but wholesale changes? Why not when Rutten first took over, so we'd finish low then, and then as its embedded and the kids get experience/bigger bodies, improve? Hell, if Rutten believed in it, why move away from it? We seem to have these issues with gameplans every year after competing in finals. Which implies that the coaches either don't have the will, or the board backing, to push through the changes and take the hits in the win/loss column for a year or two. Until we get the willpower to do that, how can any coach materially change things?

Just on game plan it is very normal for adjustments to be made each year. You start with the base and then you add a layer to that. There are Melbourne players on record saying it took them 3 or 4 seasons to bed down the game plan to a level they where really comfortable with. I am not sure where the wholesale changes comments come from but from my knowledge they tried to add a bit more defensive set up / positioning and also tried to modify how we attack (which was Caracella's baby). It was all pretty standard sort of stuff. I know for a fact that Clarkson threw out 3 games plans in his first year including one that did not even get to pre season games. They also had some real issues in the second year expanding it.
In the end Truck moved away from it because there was no buy in . He had to try and come up with something to fit the list.
Some will say it is coach.
I say it is just as much club culture and players and I also say it is part recruiting and the types of players we have drafted or looked at compared to ones we have not. I base this on the experience of having a small part at a couple of other clubs and comparing who they where looking at and drafting to who we drafted.
Adrian can spot talent. He has not always been great on draft leaders and strong role players in the 30 to 60 range of the draft. We have picked them at the back end and they have lacked the actual quality of some guys like Parker or Graham .

The list has some great potential but is gets a F for leadership and an F for hard edge payers who will drive the standards.

 

[ant555]

I had a look around. If we got Stoker, Collier-Dawkins and then went for the big Ben King trade at the end of next year, with Caldwell we will have 4 players in that bracket.

Collingwood is screwed with 11 players 30 and over next year. As well as 16 players from the last three drafts with only 2 of them being any quality. Three if you count the blonde nob.

Dreams are free but what makes you think Ben King will come back ? If he was coming back he would not have signed to stay this year.

 

[fishardansin]

I'm bullish on the potential, its everything we do as a club after the players walk through the door I'm pessimistic about. Can we develop them and keep them on the park? Can we be actually patient and not try and rush via top-up (again)? Hell, will we identify who we don't want and move them on as soon as possible?

I'm also bullish in the context that I expected us to miss finals this year and really see us pushing from 2024 or so onwards.

A good example of my concerns. Why were we making major changes to our gameplan this year? Why weren't those changes made last year? I expected tweaking of our gameplan to try and fix the issues, but wholesale changes? Why not when Rutten first took over, so we'd finish low then, and then as its embedded and the kids get experience/bigger bodies, improve? Hell, if Rutten believed in it, why move away from it? We seem to have these issues with gameplans every year after competing in finals. Which implies that the coaches either don't have the will, or the board backing, to push through the changes and take the hits in the win/loss column for a year or two. Until we get the willpower to do that, how can any coach materially change things?

For me, it isn't just about individual development. It is about looking at the team as an ecosystem and making sure each niche is filled. I think Sydney develops players well by identifying a role for them and giving them time to get good at it. They aren't thrown into the deep end. They are given roles that scaffold their development to the role they want them to eventually.

Regards urgent development needs for Essendon. I think Cox and Reid are the lynchpins to make that group of players aged 19-22 a big success for Essendon. I think we can see that Perkins, Martin, Hobbs and Durham are quality and really only need a good run with injuries to allow them to simultaneously build their tank, bodies and experience to become excellent players. One or two of Menzie, Wanganeen and Lord coming on will be icing on the cake. The cherry on top, which would make me say we developed this group well, is that Jones AND Bryan either hold down an important spot in the forward line or improve to the point that they return draft/trade capital to us.

If there are two quality talls then it is an excellent group. I know Reid missed his first year with injuries and being as tall as him development is always a little slower. However, there were a few signs that I found worrying like a lack of strength in the contest and no pace to make up for that. He needs to be given a role in the backline that he can cope with at this stage, which allows him to develop into "the man" down there. Jones is important to the development of Cox. Personally, I'd like them two to focus on endurance running. If we had a gut running 200cm CHB who could intercept along with Reid able to stand the opposition beast then our backline is awesome. Jones being a gut-running CHF who works up and down the ground providing outlet passes for halfbacks under pressure and an option to play fast through, then 2MP has more space to do his thing. I personally would be trading for Gunstan to help Jones become that player. First by filling the role and helping Jones train for it (while he plays majority VFL) then finding a way to play alongside each other, and eventually making way for him.

 

[eDPS]

Personally, I'd like them two to focus on endurance running

These are two of their best pre-draft traits, I suppose it’s a better tactic to try and help them get the most out of it in a game sense.

 

[fishardansin]

These are two of their best pre-draft traits, I suppose it’s a better tactic to try and help them get the most out of it in a game sense.

Yes, but I thought the same of Stewart as CHF, then they went and bulked him up. He has been perenially injured since.

 

[Ants]

Just on game plan it is very normal for adjustments to be made each year. You start with the base and then you add a layer to that. There are Melbourne players on record saying it took them 3 or 4 seasons to bed down the game plan to a level they where really comfortable with. I am not sure where the wholesale changes comments come from but from my knowledge they tried to add a bit more defensive set up / positioning and also tried to modify how we attack (which was Caracella's baby). It was all pretty standard sort of stuff. I know for a fact that Clarkson threw out 3 games plans in his first year including one that did not even get to pre season games. They also had some real issues in the second year expanding it.
In the end Truck moved away from it because there was no buy in . He had to try and come up with something to fit the list.
Some will say it is coach.
I say it is just as much club culture and players and I also say it is part recruiting and the types of players we have drafted or looked at compared to ones we have not. I base this on the experience of having a small part at a couple of other clubs and comparing who they where looking at and drafting to who we drafted.
Adrian can spot talent. He has not always been great on draft leaders and strong role players in the 30 to 60 range of the draft. We have picked them at the back end and they have lacked the actual quality of some guys like Parker or Graham .

The list has some great potential but is gets a F for leadership and an F for hard edge payers who will drive the standards.

I do expect gameplans to change and evolve. But I also expect coaches to have an idea in their head where they want to get to. What type of approach to move the ball, how to defend. And I'd expect it to be tweaked around that general goal. I also expect to see the architecture of the overall goal in the initial versions, and for it to be being implemented in year 1 (or attempts to).

The view on wholesale gameplan changes this year are based entirely on my observations (usually from level 2 wing, either MCC or Marvel). It felt like the instructions were quite different, with the defenders pushing much further up, far more zone than man-on-man, and instructions to leave your man to try and corral the opposition ball-carrier. Less run and carry early days as well.

The very fact that he moved away from it because there was no buy-in, rather than dropping players and insisting, is a bad sign for me. And indicates a weak coach or a poorly instructed one (by CEO/board).

 

[The Donners]

I would vehemently disagree.

I would vehemently disagree with your disagreeing.

Too slow to play outside midfielder, lacks aggression for inside midfielder, too slow for wing and we’ve got enough talls and third talls in the forward line. Perhaps we’ll try him in the backline next?

 

[ant555]

I do expect gameplans to change and evolve. But I also expect coaches to have an idea in their head where they want to get to. What type of approach to move the ball, how to defend. And I'd expect it to be tweaked around that general goal. I also expect to see the architecture of the overall goal in the initial versions, and for it to be being implemented in year 1 (or attempts to).

The view on wholesale gameplan changes this year are based entirely on my observations (usually from level 2 wing, either MCC or Marvel). It felt like the instructions were quite different, with the defenders pushing much further up, far more zone than man-on-man, and instructions to leave your man to try and corral the opposition ball-carrier. Less run and carry early days as well.

The very fact that he moved away from it because there was no buy-in, rather than dropping players and insisting, is a bad sign for me. And indicates a weak coach or a poorly instructed one (by CEO/board).

That’s right. I forgot our list has been that good for 15 years so it must be the coach
Out of interest how do you drop a midfielder if all the midfielders playing VFL are VFL listed ?

I am just not buying all our issues are coach related. Truck failed but the culture has been the same since 2005.

Our issues run deeper than a rookie coach who could not sell the message which in general was right .

 

[Ants]

That’s right. I forgot our list has been that good for 15 years so it must be the coach
Out of interest how do you drop a midfielder if all the midfielders playing VFL are VFL listed ?

You move one of Perkins, Hobbs or Caldwell who were playing forward pre-injury into the midfield. Then give Hird or someone else a go up forward.

If you're willing to lose the games to embed the system, you can certainly make a statement. If there are too many players not doing it, drop the most high profile ones and explain to everyone what is expected.

Injury management/fitness and the Saga were the main reasons the list wasn't any good in 2012-2016. In both 2012 and 2013 the team was top 4 before falling off a cliff, so the talent and (at that stage) coaching was there.

 

[ant555]

You move one of Perkins, Hobbs or Caldwell who were playing forward pre-injury into the midfield. Then give Hird or someone else a go up forward.

If you're willing to lose the games to embed the system, you can certainly make a statement. If there are too many players not doing it, drop the most high profile ones and explain to everyone what is expected.

Injury management/fitness and the Saga were the main reasons the list wasn't any good in 2012-2016. In both 2012 and 2013 the team was top 4 before falling off a cliff, so the talent and (at that stage) coaching was there.

If you want to believe that well there is nothing I can say. Every year you tell us how good the list is and it is over 6000 days since we won a final.
All is peachy.

Your definition of good must be different.
I say the best sides make preliminary finals. Good sides make finals and at least win one . Average sides finish 6th to 10th and not win a final or just miss.
We have been average. The only year I will concede good was 2013 when we went 14-8 and where 4/4 against top 4 sides but got the boot from the finals.

As for player moves. Perkins was an issue learning the system despite some good games. There was no real pre injury period. Merrett went down in round 2.
At that stage Hird had done very little and we actually played Wanganeen early on despite him not being ready. There was not a lot of difference between how we played the first 9 games. 2021 3-9 v 2022 2-8. Both periods had big losses. The main difference in the seasons was the second half of 2021 we had a softer draw and Stringer was probably the best player in the comp in the back end of the season. Of course expectations where not as high.

 

[ant555]

And for everyone thinking I am saying Truck had no faults . You are wrong. My point is there are a number issues .

 

[rusman]

And for everyone thinking I am saying Truck had no faults . You are wrong. My point is there are a number issues .

I recall a post of yours last year or the year before (I could be wrong). But it essentially said that after the suspensions the effected players were given too much rope to just try to be happy again / not leave.

That then created a culture of non-system based footy. A bit of a pay me attitude before accomplishing anything.

This makes the most sense to me. You can’t have multiple coaches and assistant coaches from successful clubs all be the issue.

To me It has to be the culture in the players and likely influential stakeholders around the club.

 

[Yoda_]

I recall a post of yours last year or the year before (I could be wrong). But it essentially said that after the suspensions the effected players were given too much rope to just try to be happy again / not leave.

That then created a culture of non-system based footy. A bit of a pay me attitude before accomplishing anything.

This makes the most sense to me. You can’t have multiple coaches and assistant coaches from successful clubs all be the issue.

To me It has to be the culture in the players and likely influential stakeholders around the club.

I always got this feeling when we were handing out contracts. Some were really strange at the time, obviously instilled that kulcha into the fabric of the football club in the last 5 years.

 

[Duckworth]

I always got this feeling when we were handing out contracts. Some were really strange at the time, obviously instilled that kulcha into the fabric of the football club in the last 5 years.

We are well under the salary cap, and have had a reasonable amount of list turnover. This means that in the last few years Rutten has been asked to do a lot (a couple of stars could be added to the list with that cap space).
The list management is also very wonky, even though we are in a rebuild phase. It made dropping a midfielder for poor performance quite hard when there was very few (or none?) players to promote. I hope we pick a couple of good work ethic types that can drive some standards.

 

[faible]

We are well under the salary cap, and have had a reasonable amount of list turnover. This means that in the last few years Rutten has been asked to do a lot (a couple of stars could be added to the list with that cap space).
The list management is also very wonky, even though we are in a rebuild phase. It made dropping a midfielder for poor performance quite hard when there was very few (or none?) players to promote. I hope we pick a couple of good work ethic types that can drive some standards.

Ham was playing midfield in the VFL, which should give people an idea of what midfield options we had available to bring in.

 

[fishardansin]

When is this Tasmanian team projected to enter the AFL? The timing is pretty important re the building of our list.

I honestly put down the regularity of the same teams up the top of the ladder during the last 15 years down to the entry of the new teams. Not as the only factor, but as a contributing factor.

Essendon, Carlton, Richmond and North were all just starting or halfway into a rebuild. This was compounded with FA and it felt like the cycle was broken. I feel like Richmond, Brisbane, Melbourne and the Doggies (who I think are much better than 2022 results) are the first teams to break out of the Geelong, Hawthorn, Collingwood and Sydney dominance and build teams that are able to sustain success (top 4 finishes).

If the Tassie team were to enter in 2025, this time around Essendon, Adelaide, Hawthorn and North would be screwed. I also think Collingwood and Geelong can't fight gravity forever. If that team comes in in 2028 then they are going to be hammered at the bottom of their rebuild.

 

[Ants]

If you want to believe that well there is nothing I can say. Every year you tell us how good the list is and it is over 6000 days since we won a final.
All is peachy.

I don’t think it’s all peachy. I just don’t think recruitment is the problem. We’ve had plenty of other problems holding us back, of which the saga is the biggest.

And to be clear, I don’t think the list is a good AFL list right now. I think it’s good for a list in the second year of a rebuild. Plenty of work still to occur and lots of development has to go right. But the right structures are there IMO.

I do have issues with the clubs development of the list. A lot of the issues stem from the decisions to chase finals and top-up before we were ready, and reluctance to rebuild. I assume that’s a directive from the top, which your comments on the board and Daniher would appear to agree with.

A revolving door of coaches also makes a cohesive list management plan difficult.

Your definition of good must be different.
I say the best sides make preliminary finals. Good sides make finals and at least win one . Average sides finish 6th to 10th and not win a final or just miss.
We have been average. The only year I will concede good was 2013 when we went 14-8 and where 4/4 against top 4 sides but got the boot from the finals.

What about the year before when we were 10-3 after round 14, equal second on the ladder, had beaten three other teams who finished in the finals and only lost to two finalists, one the eventual premier by 4 points and one a top 4 team by 1 point? 2012 and 2013 taken back to back would imply the talent was fine then, and we were building as would be hoped for.

As for player moves. Perkins was an issue learning the system despite some good games. There was no real pre injury period. Merrett went down in round 2.
At that stage Hird had done very little and we actually played Wanganeen early on despite him not being ready. There was not a lot of difference between how we played the first 9 games. 2021 3-9 v 2022 2-8. Both periods had big losses. The main difference in the seasons was the second half of 2021 we had a softer draw and Stringer was probably the best player in the comp in the back end of the season. Of course expectations where not as high.

There were big differences in game style IMO. We should have used 2021’s low expectations to focus on development not wins.

I was one of the ones saying preseason that there was a strong possibility we’d miss finals. Because the list isn’t ready yet.

 

[Lads2023]

Would we be crazy enough to bring in a 37 year old David Mundy

16

David Mundy

Age

39

Ht

192cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.1

5star

K

11.2

4star

HB

11.8

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

4.3

5star

CL

5.1

5star

D

15.7

4star

K

6.7

3star

HB

9.0

4star

M

2.3

2star

T

2.7

4star

CL

3.7

5star

D

27.8

5star

K

15.4

5star

HB

12.4

5star

M

5.8

5star

T

6.2

5star

CL

7.2

5star

for 1 year as a player/coach?

He can teach the young guys what it means to play with some heart

 

[Ants]

I feel like Richmond, Brisbane, Melbourne and the Doggies (who I think are much better than 2022 results) are the first teams to break out of the Geelong, Hawthorn, Collingwood and Sydney dominance

Richmond I feel their cornerstones were still from prior to the new clubs entry. Riewoldt, Rance, Cotchin, Edwards, Astbury and Martin were all 2006-2009.

Brisbane and Melbourne had a horrific number of years at the bottom to fuel their rises.

Even Bulldogs had a huge amount of father son luck.

Which indicates it’s still bloody hard to break in.

 

[faible]

Would we be crazy enough to bring in a 37 year old David Mundy for 1 year as a player/coach?

He can teach the young guys what it means to play with some heart

I'd get Mundy or Josh Kennedy in as stoppages coaches in a heartbeat even if they didn't play a game.