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

[fishardansin]

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.

That is true regards the Richmond players.

The teams that have had that long-term success have the key players that the club is built around remain for an extended period. Sheedy used to always talk about this. To paraphrase "A successful team has 4 players you don't need to coach, it is how you coach the other 20 players that matters". I know Pendlebury and Selwood/Hawkins are not the core of their teams anymore, however, I do think when their era ends the club's dominance era ends unless there is someone to carry that mantle.

Anyhow, everyone talks about Geelong and Sydney defying gravity. I just don't buy that it will last forever. All empires and dynasties fall. I mean in the year 2001 would any of you predict Carlton and Essendon be irrelevant for 2 decades? Collingwood and Sydney were complete rabbles. Geelong would pop up in finals here and there on the back of some enigmatic stars. Richmond was a meme. Hawthorn had all their wealthy supporters buy 100s of memberships.

I am 47 and a keen amateur historian. I fully expect the wheel to turn twice in the remainder of my life. There will be a period of dominance when we're seen as a beacon of "how you do it" and a period of the rabble.

I deeply suspect that it is a lack of patience through periods of weakness that makes clubs a rabble. Hopefully, the club can run completely professionally soon with a data-based approach to analyse what all clubs go through at all stages of the cycle, and then set sensible KPIs for all staff. Stop expecting to dominate, just maximise our output through our position in the cycle created by drafts and salary caps.

 

[Ants]

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

Would think that would be a good idea.

I mean assuming he’s the type who ca coach!

 

[Ants]

Anyhow, everyone talks about Geelong and Sydney defying gravity. I just don't buy that it will last forever.

Sydney will stay up while given the academy picks. I think they’ve got 9 players on the list from the academy and around 5-6 in the side.

 

[ant555]

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.

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.

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.

You never think recruiting is the problem. I can compare working inside another system. Recruiting is not as bad a some say but it has been a problem.
The saga certainly stopped a promising rebuild in its tracks but there have been some real issues. How do you explain the real lack of leadership on the list right now ? We have simply not drafted any.

2012 and 2013 even more so showed we where on the way but I still know from that period our team defense was average. I know from speaking to players that they where reluctant to leave their own man because no one else would help out and pick them up. I also know the opposition sides knew our team defense was average and exploited it. We where on the way up but we had a lot to do still an my opinion was / is we still needed to find another 3 or 4 players to push for top 4.

As for Daniher , yes the board was firm on not trading him but Adrian was just as firm. If it had of been up to Worsfold he would have let him go earlier.

We have had issues everywhere. Recruiting and list balance has been one of them.

There was no way the club was going to cop losing games to develop . Lets face it the board came out and said in the media Truck had to change things.
They wanted to develop a more structured zone defense to build on 2021 but players just did not pick it up. It was not super complex but it was more structured as far as positioning goes. People slam the coach but the board was pressuring to dumb down the game plan. There was also an issue with the midfielders understanding exactly how Caracella wanted them to play and Blake was 100% driving that side.
There was a noticeable difference in game plan because they could not implement the next step in the evolution. Exactly the same as in 2018 when the game plan had to be changed after a poor start.

I do not restrict myself to just judging our games. I went go and watch Geelong live 4 times over the year or Sydney when they have played here. Went to watch Melbourne live 3 times. Also took in a few different VFL games to watch what sides where working on at that level. Reason I did it was to get a comparison point. My conclusion was we can make the simple look really stupid and a lot of it is players just not being smart enough or willing enough.

 

[faible]

You never think recruiting is the problem. I can compare working inside another system. Recruiting is not as bad a some say but it has been a problem.
The saga certainly stopped a promising rebuild in its tracks but there have been some real issues. How do you explain the real lack of leadership on the list right now ? We have simply not drafted any.

2012 and 2013 even more so showed we where on the way but I still know from that period our team defense was average. I know from speaking to players that they where reluctant to leave their own man because no one else would help out and pick them up. I also know the opposition sides knew our team defense was average and exploited it. We where on the way up but we had a lot to do still an my opinion was / is we still needed to find another 3 or 4 players to push for top 4.

As for Daniher , yes the board was firm on not trading him but Adrian was just as firm. If it had of been up to Worsfold he would have let him go earlier.

We have had issues everywhere. Recruiting and list balance has been one of them.

There was no way the club was going to cop losing games to develop . Lets face it the board came out and said in the media Truck had to change things.
They wanted to develop a more structured zone defense to build on 2021 but players just did not pick it up. It was not super complex but it was more structured as far as positioning goes. People slam the coach but the board was pressuring to dumb down the game plan. There was also an issue with the midfielders understanding exactly how Caracella wanted them to play and Blake was 100% driving that side.
There was a noticeable difference in game plan because they could not implement the next step in the evolution. Exactly the same as in 2018 when the game plan had to be changed after a poor start.

I do not restrict myself to just judging our games. I went go and watch Geelong live 4 times over the year or Sydney when they have played here. Went to watch Melbourne live 3 times. Also took in a few different VFL games to watch what sides where working on at that level. Reason I did it was to get a comparison point. My conclusion was we can make the simple look really stupid and a lot of it is players just not being smart enough or willing enough.

Supporters: Why are Essendon so easy to score against? They need a develop a defensive system!
Also Supporters: Why are players guarding grass? MAN UP!

 

[ant555]

Supporters: Why are Essendon so easy to score against? They need a develop a defensive system!
Also Supporters: Why are players guarding grass? MAN UP!

Yep. The old man up. Problem with man up is it can be more of an issue if players do not man up in a couple of spots.

I always find it amazing that players , and not just ours , can stand on one side of the zone and not be within 30 meters of a player yet think it is okay to guard that space. It should be an easy exercise but in reality out on the ground the sides that have a decent footy IQ get it and the rest make the same mistakes.
The function of the zone is to slide or move up and down to cover any spots where players have not picked up a man but there is a percentage of players that just never get it for some reason.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Anyhow, everyone talks about Geelong and Sydney defying gravity. I just don't buy that it will last forever. All empires and dynasties fall. I mean in the year 2001 would any of you predict Carlton and Essendon be irrelevant for 2 decades? Collingwood and Sydney were complete rabbles. Geelong would pop up in finals here and there on the back of some enigmatic stars. Richmond was a meme. Hawthorn had all their wealthy supporters buy 100s of memberships.

I disagree with this. Football isn't the same as it's been for the last hundred years. There was a transition to a higher level of professionalism in the early 2000's, that we missed the memo on.

A key part of their systems is that emphasis on maintaining it's integrity across the generations; they bridged 3-4 generations of players already, the wheel will only turn if they get a bunch of injuries to senior players in a key hand over phase. Though given their professionalism and conditioning, it's unlikely. They also have unique advantages of talent acquisition, Sydney has the academy and Geelong are the only team that can offer unique home coming opportunities in a football heart land. Geelong are about to inherit Bruhn and Henry for less than their respective teams paid for them, with the addition of 2 years development which has already tested their suitability to AFL professionalism.

 

[fishardansin]

I disagree with this. Football isn't the same as it's been for the last hundred years. There was a transition to a higher level of professionalism in the early 2000's, that we missed the memo on.

A key part of their systems is that emphasis on maintaining it's integrity across the generations; they bridged 3-4 generations of players already, the wheel will only turn if they get a bunch of injuries to senior players in a key hand over phase. Though given their professionalism and conditioning, it's unlikely. They also have unique advantages of talent acquisition, Sydney has the academy and Geelong are the only team that can offer unique home coming opportunities in a football heart land. Geelong are about to inherit Bruhn and Henry for less than their respective teams paid for them, with the addition of 2 years development which has already tested their suitability to AFL professionalism.

Professionalism is always increasing. At different times, different organisations are the best at this.

 

[faible]

I disagree with this. Football isn't the same as it's been for the last hundred years. There was a transition to a higher level of professionalism in the early 2000's, that we missed the memo on.

A key part of their systems is that emphasis on maintaining it's integrity across the generations; they bridged 3-4 generations of players already, the wheel will only turn if they get a bunch of injuries to senior players in a key hand over phase. Though given their professionalism and conditioning, it's unlikely. They also have unique advantages of talent acquisition, Sydney has the academy and Geelong are the only team that can offer unique home coming opportunities in a football heart land. Geelong are about to inherit Bruhn and Henry for less than their respective teams paid for them, with the addition of 2 years development which has already tested their suitability to AFL professionalism.

Selwood & Hawkins both came through from an era where Geelong had some elite players, and some neat F/S benefits.

Once Selwood & Hawkins are done, we'll see how they go sustaining it. Much like Hawthorn post-Hodge / Mitchell / Lewis started a slow decline as the core of their on-field leadership departed.

 

[andleanback]

Sydney will stay up while given the academy picks. I think they’ve got 9 players on the list from the academy and around 5-6 in the side.

I’m not sure I understand the Sydney defying gravity. They’ve already done a rebuild
They draft well, trade well and bring in cheap value players that can play a role. Look at Ryan Clarke, he’s playing in an afl grand final.

 

[faible]

I’m not sure I understand the Sydney defying gravity. They’ve already done a rebuild
They draft well, trade well and bring in cheap value players that can play a role. Look at Ryan Clarke, he’s playing in an afl grand final.

Academy freebies don't hurt; Heeney for Pick 18 (they played in a GF) when he would have been ~ Top-5 in the open draft. A year later they play in a Semi-Final and get Mills at 3 with an assortment of shit picks (33, 36, 37 & 43) when by rights their actual pick should have been around 13/14.

Nick Blakey @ 10 is about where their pick would have been anyway
Braedan Campbell @ 5 where they tanked the ever-loving shit out of the season and snuck a pick in prior (Logan McDonald) giving them 2 x Top-5 selections
Errol Gulden @ 32 which was around their natural pick, but again, see tanking the shit out of the season to get McDonald before Campbell.

That's 5 x Best-22 players from their Academy, plus the continual talent coming through means they're often not playing with the same currency as others - Heeney and Mills - or incentivised tanking - Campbell + McDonald.

 

[andleanback]

Academy freebies don't hurt; Heeney for Pick 18 (they played in a GF) when he would have been ~ Top-5 in the open draft. A year later they play in a Semi-Final and get Mills at 3 with an assortment of s**t picks (33, 36, 37 & 43) when by rights their actual pick should have been around 13/14.

Nick Blakey @ 10 is about where their pick would have been anyway
Braedan Campbell @ 5 where they tanked the ever-loving s**t out of the season and snuck a pick in prior (Logan McDonald) giving them 2 x Top-5 selections
Errol Gulden @ 32 which was around their natural pick, but again, see tanking the s**t out of the season to get McDonald before Campbell.

They’re hardly freebies, the nga’s were freebies. They work with thousands of kids in nsw and most of them come into the academy around 10-11 years old, so they put years of work into them. Not sure how they you think they deliberately tanked, they were just bad with heaps on injuries. Heeney, kennedy and buddy missed most/ all of the year for starters.

 

[faible]

They’re hardly freebies, the nga’s were freebies. They work with thousands of kids in nsw and most of them come into the academy around 10-11 years old, so they put years of work into them. Not sure how they you think they deliberately tanked, they were just bad with heaps on injuries. Heeney, kennedy and buddy missed most/ all of the year for starters.

They're freebies in the sense that they're playing a totally different draft game to everyone else.

The limitation on players is equalisation via the draft, Sydney simply play in a different space to the rest of the comp given they can spend cash on a zone with literally millions of people living in it

https://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/SydneySwans/Club%20HQ/QBE%20Sydney%20Swans%20Academy%20-%20Zoning%20Map.pdf

And I can almost guarantee you, had Sydney traded that pick to us for Daniher, they'd have mysteriously been significantly less shit.

 

[andleanback]

They're freebies in the sense that they're playing a totally different draft game to everyone else.

The limitation on players is equalisation via the draft, Sydney simply play in a different space to the rest of the comp given they can spend cash on a zone with literally millions of people living in it

https://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/SydneySwans/Club%20HQ/QBE%20Sydney%20Swans%20Academy%20-%20Zoning%20Map.pdf

And I can almost guarantee you, had Sydney traded that pick to us for Daniher, they'd have mysteriously been significantly less s**t.

Different draft game to everyone else? Um except gws, Gold Coast and Brisbane who also have academies.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Selwood & Hawkins both came through from an era where Geelong had some elite players, and some neat F/S benefits.

Once Selwood & Hawkins are done, we'll see how they go sustaining it. Much like Hawthorn post-Hodge / Mitchell / Lewis started a slow decline as the core of their on-field leadership departed.

Hawks didn't really hand over as well as Geelong have. I think they carry it on. Guthrie, Atkins, Stewart, Blicavs, Dangerfield, will carry the torch for a bit but their next generation in Holmes, Henry and De Koning are already showing brilliant leadership traits. Add in Henry and Bruhn and they'll be guns in no time under this team.

 

[faible]

Different draft game to everyone else? Um except gws, Gold Coast and Brisbane who also have academies.

GWS' academy had the riverina region removed from memory, which is where most of the good prospects were coming from, otherwise they largely have regional NSW.

Meanwhile, Sydney have Metro Sydney with multiple millions of people residing in it.

 

[BrunoV]

Hawks didn't really hand over as well as Geelong have. I think they carry it on. Guthrie, Atkins, Stewart, Blicavs, Dangerfield, will carry the torch for a bit but their next generation in Holmes, Henry and De Koning are already showing brilliant leadership traits. Add in Henry and Bruhn and they'll be guns in no time under this team.

I think what caught up with the Hawks in the end was that the list build was never as good as was assumed.

There was never a lot coming up behind the best 22. 23 to 30 were guys who could plug into the system as long as the top end talent was there. There were first round misses galore post 2004. Contrast that with Taylor, Guthrie and Duncan.

They also chased a flag between 2016 and 2018. Can't really fault the decision given that they finished top 4 in 16 + 18 but there are consequences.

The Cats have been more methodical, more long term. Continually adding a combination of experience and youth. It would be interesting to know what Scott and co really thought about the team pre-2020. Did they ever think it was a premiership side? Hindsight says it wasn't, not when Hawkins was the only avenue to goal, and their forward pressure game sucked, for example.

It wasn't until they were within touching distance that they threw the kitchen sink at a trade for Cameron. And it was Jeremy Cameron, not a cooked Jaeger O'Meara.

From here it's looking pretty bloody good. It shouldn't be too difficult to trade in Bruhn (R1) and Henry (R1) to add to Holmes (R1), Stephens (R1) and Knevitt (R2) to replace some of the aging forward and midfield players.

I think they're about to realise what they've set out to achieve, a sort of perpetual success that replenishes itself. It's not just that there was a great era, its that there was a great bridge between eras, a successful side living in the top 4, animal running to teach the kids how to work, all that stuff. They've now got a depth of what look to be high quality kids to integrate as stars retire.

I can only really see them getting stronger.

 

[The Prosecutor]

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.

That also stems back to those same players seeing the generation before them in the likes of Lloyd etc. just doing whatever the **** they wanted at the end, thinking they ran the club seeing as they were were premiership players, treating the likes of Matthew Knights with contempt and believing people like him had nothing worth teaching. Its festered ever since.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

They're freebies in the sense that they're playing a totally different draft game to everyone else.

The limitation on players is equalisation via the draft, Sydney simply play in a different space to the rest of the comp given they can spend cash on a zone with literally millions of people living in it

https://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/SydneySwans/Club%20HQ/QBE%20Sydney%20Swans%20Academy%20-%20Zoning%20Map.pdf

And I can almost guarantee you, had Sydney traded that pick to us for Daniher, they'd have mysteriously been significantly less s**t.

The reason why it's so significant is their talent identification isn't great. They haven't had an elite non-academy player in the first round of a draft since McVeigh in 02.

Take out Mills, Heeney, Gulden and Blakely and they probably aren't playing finals and given their talent identification, I doubt the replacement players would be close to their caliber.

 

[Mikevk123]

Random posters on the Richmond board are saying the Tigers are keen on Bryan.

 

[ant555]

Random posters on the Richmond board are saying the Tigers are keen on Bryan.

Of course they are. They need their next ruck and then they look at the VFL stats and see Bryan having 30 plus hit outs most weeks but only playing a handful of games. On top of this the media do the same thing and it becomes Bryan "could " want out for more opportunity. Same thing happened with Draper.

 

[Mikevk123]

Of course they are. They need their next ruck and then they look at the VFL stats and see Bryan having 30 plus hit outs most weeks but only playing a handful of games. On top of this the media do the same thing and it becomes Bryan "could " want out for more opportunity. Same thing happened with Draper.

If we can get a good pick for him, I’d let him go.

 

[ant555]

If we can get a good pick for him, I’d let him go.

He is a better ruck than Draper.

 

[Mikevk123]

He is a better ruck than Draper.

Yes he is, but he has no forward craft and can’t co-exist in a team with Draper

 

[ant555]

Yes he is, but he has no forward craft and can’t co-exist in a team with Draper

So we move on the better ruck ?
Yeah right. Makes perfect sense.