Team Rd 1

[Slippery Pete]

I". I agree with the general sentiment here that the Crows make earning a spot in the best 22 too hard. That's what I see as the problem, that we demand too much before we give significant chances. That we make earning your spot too high a mountain to climb.

And that's the crux of it. We often hear NC say that a young player will be expected to come into the team and perform immediately, that no concession will be made for age. Is this dangerous to a player's development? It's a case by case basis, but I think the example of Taylor Walker shows that it can be very dangerous.

 

[Slippery Pete]

And its a different style and quality of player. Some guys will shine brigther in the AFL than they ever will in the SANFL. That was one of the implications of my points on Davis. He wasnt a stand-out performer at SANFL (by all reports - I should be honest and say I've never seen his actual play there). In th AFL side he really showed he belonged and needed to keep being played and developed there. Had a string of scalps (defenisvely) and got dumped not long after....

Absolutely dead right. Not selecting a player because he's been out of form in the SANFL, or bringing a player back through the SANFL to "regain form and confidence" is the one of the biggest fallacies of all time for mine.

 

[Truck Rutten]

Reilly has only missed 4 games last 2 seasons, playing every game since R15 2009. Last year he averaged 4.5 marks, 19.7 disposals and 4.7 tackles a game. Double digit disposals in all but 2 of his last 55 games.

That would be great if he was a key forward or was playing under 8s.

Not sure why you're highlighting 09 in any pro Reilly argument. He was dropped twice, earning a late reprieve when Bob Shirley's appeal with the SANFL tribunal was unsuccessful, had a terrible year, and at the end of the season found himself in the last chance saloon, having to take on the tagging role the following pre season in an attempt to rescue his career. He ended up having a good season in 2010, after starting off in average fashion, but as long as tagging is the only string to his bow, he'll be one of the guys most expendable if any of our more talented younger players are burning up the SANFL.

 

[Truck Rutten]

Good SANFL form is rewarded. Davis, Otten, MacKay all had SANFL runs.

Young is close, and was rewarded by getting a spot ahead of 'schedule'. Should a tall position open up though injury or poor form, he'd be first call.

Who's had good SANFL form that has been left out?

I don't know that Davis is a great example. He was an emergency in several games towards the end of 09 and I seem to remember him being a bit miffed that he didn't crack the side. He certainly wasn't brought in as soon as he'd shown good SANFL form.

 

[Crow-mo]

In actual fact, how reliant were we on them? With all four in the side we slumped to our worst losing streak ever.

in my defence it was Neil who said we were reliant on them, and how he couldn't imagine how we'd go without them.

and secondly its a fundamental premise of the argument, that we must take a step backward without them.

 

[Vader]

We saw later in the season when Father Time did what Neil didn't have the balls to do, that we in fact looked pretty damn good without the oldies. The Geelong game was comfortably our best game for the year. Of course, within a matter of weeks Davis (who had owned Mooney) was booted out of the team and Walker (who kicked 4 goals against Matthew Scarlett in a low scoring night game) was gone too. The beloved oldies were rushed back in and we reverted to the familiar garbage we had dished up earlier in the season.

Making stuff up again Carl?

Davis was dropped to make way for Nathan Bock, who was returning from injury. The same Nathan Bock who was 27 years old and easily our best defender when fit. Sure, Davis won the RS medal for his worst game in a month, but bringing Bock back into the side at his expense was a no brainer. It's hardly like we were bringing back a veteran who was on his last legs.

As for Walker, your assertion is pure fiction. Tex was not dropped after kicking 4 on Scarlett. He missed one game (R20) in the last 2/3 of the season - having kicked, 2, 1 and 0 goals in the preceding 3 games. That's bad form, deserving of demotion, in anyone's language. If it were anyone other than Walker then you and everyone else would be commending the selection panel on (belatedly) making a selection based on form rather than reputation.

how about they perform like you might expect for a team that's supposedly been rebuilding since 2007, with a squad that was meant to be good enough to contend in 2010?

You might want to remember the rest of that quote. 2010 was supposed to be the "perfect storm", with our veterans still playing high quality football and our youngsters continuing their rapidly improving development trajectory from 2009.

We all know what happened.. Of the 4 veterans, only Goodwin played any "high quality" football in 2010 (Edwards' performance in his farewell game was too little too late). The engine room were either overweight/unfit (Vince) or injured (1/3 of the squad). It turned out to be a perfect storm alright, just not the kind of storm we were hoping for.

Flash forward to 2011 and the conditions for the "perfect storm" no longer exist. We don't have the veterans and the development of many of our youngsters has stalled. Sure, there are exceptions like Henderson, Davis & Sloane - but the likes of Walker, Tippett, Porplyzia, Knights, Dangermouse & Otten didn't progress as hoped in 2010 (many due to injury).

I really wish that you'd stop abusing the perfect storm quote without putting it into context. Just because they thought the team was on the verge of a flag in 2010 does not mean that the conditions remain in place in 2011.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Making stuff up again Carl?

No, but someone is.

Davis was dropped to make way for Nathan Bock, who was returning from injury. The same Nathan Bock who was 27 years old and easily our best defender when fit. Sure, Davis won the RS medal for his worst game in a month, but bringing Bock back into the side at his expense was a no brainer. It's hardly like we were bringing back a veteran who was on his last legs.

Fine. Play Bock. I'm sure we could have found someone to squeeze out of the 22 instead of an up and coming key position player who had done absolutely everything asked of him and was currently looking after the opposition's No. 1 key forwards.

As for Walker, your assertion is pure fiction. Tex was not dropped after kicking 4 on Scarlett. He missed one game (R20) in the last 2/3 of the season - having kicked, 2, 1 and 0 goals in the preceding 3 games. That's bad form, deserving of demotion, in anyone's language. If it were anyone other than Walker then you and everyone else would be commending the selection panel on (belatedly) making a selection based on form rather than reputation.

Rnd 16 vs Geel - Walker 4.1, Mooney 2.1, Tippett 1.0

Rnd 17 vs Port - Walker 2.4, Tippett 0.1, Schulz 2.0

Rnd 18 vs Rich - Walker 1.1, Riewoldt 2.1, Tippett 1.2

Rnd 19 vs WB - Walker 0.0, Hall 0.1, Tippett 1.1

Those three games following the Geelong game we (as a team) were collectively awful. And conditions were wet/windy and terrible for key forwards - even those more experienced than Walker and on a winning team on the day struggled big time.

Dropping Walker on a sunny day on a dry track in Brisbane when finals were gone was a decision based on idiocy, nothing else.

 

[Allefgib]

Idiocy is probably a stretch but I definitely agree the dropping of Walker at that point was not warranted.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Idiocy is probably a stretch but I definitely agree the dropping of Walker at that point was not warranted.

No, it was idiocy of the highest order.

 

[Slippery Pete]

If it were anyone other than Walker then you and everyone else would be commending the selection panel on (belatedly) making a selection based on form rather than reputation.

Contrary to popular belief, reputation plays a huge part in selection. And so it should.

 

[Crow-mo]

Making stuff up again Carl?

its too funny that you accuse anyone of making stuff up on a regular basis. that's like Riggy accusing people of talking shit or Jen criticising someone for taking a too positive view.

Davis was dropped to make way for Nathan Bock, who was returning from injury. The same Nathan Bock who was 27 years old and easily our best defender when fit. Sure, Davis won the RS medal for his worst game in a month, but bringing Bock back into the side at his expense was a no brainer. It's hardly like we were bringing back a veteran who was on his last legs.

that you assume this was the only, binary selection option speaks poorly of your analysis, memory or honesty.

As for Walker, your assertion is pure fiction. Tex was not dropped after kicking 4 on Scarlett. He missed one game (R20) in the last 2/3 of the season - having kicked, 2, 1 and 0 goals in the preceding 3 games. That's bad form, deserving of demotion, in anyone's language. If it were anyone other than Walker then you and everyone else would be commending the selection panel on (belatedly) making a selection based on form rather than reputation.

more of this selective memory, for example we know Walker was far from our worst performing forward as was discussed in great detail at the time. lets not revise now, on the off chance, that people might have forgotten.

You might want to remember the rest of that quote. 2010 was supposed to be the "perfect storm", with our veterans still playing high quality football and our youngsters continuing their rapidly improving development trajectory from 2009.

how about you show me, instead of asking me to remember? lets get the whole context?

We all know what happened.. Of the 4 veterans, only Goodwin played any "high quality" football in 2010 (Edwards' performance in his farewell game was too little too late). The engine room were either overweight/unfit (Vince) or injured (1/3 of the squad). It turned out to be a perfect storm alright, just not the kind of storm we were hoping for.

which is entirely irrelevant to what me might reasonably have expected. and we know players at that age fall off a cliff performance wise, with little notice. that we were reliant in ANY way is a damning indictment.

Flash forward to 2011 and the conditions for the "perfect storm" no longer exist. We don't have the veterans and the development of many of our youngsters has stalled. Sure, there are exceptions like Henderson, Davis & Sloane - but the likes of Walker, Tippett, Porplyzia, Knights, Dangermouse & Otten didn't progress as hoped in 2010 (many due to injury).

this has been discredited so many times now, that I wonder if you intend your audience to be solely people who have just joined this board in the last fortnight.

and please, stop this fantasy of yours that this perfect storm nonsense meant we expected to have a 1 year contention and then revert back to the pack. lets see where this is said.

add me to the other 27 people who have called you out.

I really wish that you'd stop abusing the perfect storm quote without putting it into context. Just because they thought the team was on the verge of a flag in 2010 does not mean that the if remain in place in 2011.

lol too funny.

 

[cmndstab]

that you assume this was the only, binary selection option speaks poorly of your analysis, memory or honesty.

My memory is not too good at the best of times, but at the time I recall it basically coming down to a decision of needing to select two players out of the trio of Bock, Davis and Stevens. Bock was coming back from injury and was considered an instant selection, so it then came down to picking one from Davis and Stevens - who had just had his best game for the season and was close to BOG.

Sure, we could have played all three, in addition to Rutten, but then we would have been top heavy.

That's how I remember it though, if I've got it wrong please feel free to tell me how else we could have gone (without dropping Stevens who was is red hot form at the time).


Also, can we please try to put our points forward without dumping a bucket on our "opponents"? It's seriously getting very tiresome.

 

[Huntercrow]

Making stuff up again Carl?

Davis was dropped to make way for Nathan Bock, who was returning from injury. The same Nathan Bock who was 27 years old and easily our best defender when fit. Sure, Davis won the RS medal for his worst game in a month, but bringing Bock back into the side at his expense was a no brainer. It's hardly like we were bringing back a veteran who was on his last legs.

.

I'm still fuming about this infamous chapter of our history.
You stated the proviso "When fit" and as it turned out Bock's performance against Port was reminiscent of an unfit player.
Neil Craig gambled that Bock for Davis would be a positive at a time when our last chance to play finals relied on a repeat of our recent form.
Not only did Bock underperform but from memory the dumped Davis had a very ordinary couple of weeks relegated to the SANFL. The double whammy!
As a result I believe Craig may have lost the younger players and the game against Port was ordinary compared to the highs of the Geelong game.
To me it seemed a poor choice at the time and in retro with the defection to GC it proved very much so.

 

[KingJames23]

My memory is not too good at the best of times, but at the time I recall it basically coming down to a decision of needing to select two players out of the trio of Bock, Davis and Stevens. Bock was coming back from injury and was considered an instant selection, so it then came down to picking one from Davis and Stevens - who had just had his best game for the season and was close to BOG.

Sure, we could have played all three, in addition to Rutten, but then we would have been top heavy.

Also, can we please try to put our points forward without dumping a bucket on our "opponents"? It's seriously getting very tiresome.

That's how I remember it though, if I've got it wrong please feel free to tell me how else we could have gone (without dropping Stevens who was is red hot form at the time).

That's correct, although I think it more came to a decision between Bock and Davis. We know Craig is big on "credits", which is why Porplyzia continued to play in our team despite his poor form. Those senior guys with the "credits in the bank" were always going to be selected ahead of Davis.

And this whole Rising Star business is completely taken out of context. The media ran with the whole "dropped after a rising star nomination" and everyone kicked up a fuss. We all know that aside from maybe round 1-3, the nomination is given to players who display consistency, and its not based on one game. Davis' best games were probably his first 7 of the season, but he was rewarded in round 16 for consistency. As stabby says, Stevens was in fine form, Rutten is a given and as for Bock, you dont leave an AA on the sidelines if fit. Not to mention Bock had "credit". Its really a no-win situation for Craig. If Bock didnt play, people will question a) has bock signed with GC or b) why is a fit AA player on the sidelines.

 

[Tex200]

If I may comment on the "perfect storm issue".

I have always thought that 2009 was the perfect storm ( or as perfect as it could be) albeit unexpected and ultimately fruitless.

By mid way through 2009 our younger players had improved markedly...Mckay, Vince, Knights, Tippett, Otten were taking the game on and were being perfectly complimented by Goodwin (AA season), Mcleod and Edwards who were still contributing. We were dominating sides and as we looked to finals we were being talked up as genuine dark horses. We had supposedly..just the right mix.

Then there was the semi final. It was our young players who carried us that night with fine performances. Goodwin made some howlers, Mcleod sprayed the ball when running unchecked through half forward at crucial times and Edward missed targets all night...Burton flagged.

We lost to a side who were never going to challenge for the flag after giving ourselves a 6 goal start. That evening was a clear indicator that the current combination of old and new was not the right mix and could not have possibly become a better mix with the veterans a year older. It was time to accept the bush required further pruning and that a few more years were required to develop some players to assist those who wewre so brave that night.

The succession blunder was made to look worse when the pre season disaster placed our eggs in the veterans basket when they were clearly not equipped.

These observations are in no way meant to disrespect champions of our club and the game.

 

[Elite Crow]

Well put and agree whole heartedly. The vets were poor but have been when the heat was on during the last few finals campaigns. Just look at the loss to Collingwood in 08.

 

[Crow-mo]

ok leaving aside all all the fictious inferences surrounding this perfect storm nonsense, lets not forget a real fact: at end of 2009 we didn't believe we had any needs or deficiencies in our list.

further if Craig had come out and said at end of 2009 we are still 4 years away from contention he'd have been lynched.

 

[Cap]

I don't think he said we didn't have deficiencies more so that any deficiencies we did have could be filled by returning injured players and senior players stepping up.

all in hindsight utter rubbish.

 

[Tex200]

ok leaving aside all all the fictious inferences surrounding this perfect storm nonsense, lets not forget a real fact: at end of 2009 we didn't believe we had any needs or deficiencies in our list.

further if Craig had come out and said at end of 2009 we are still 4 years away from contention he'd have been lynched.

Having lost a semi final to a side that was not even a serious challenger and also having not beaten a top 4 side that year, anyone that thought we had no needs or deficiencies was not being honest with themselves.

Would it really have needed the coach to make such a statement. All the club needed to do was to accept we were not close and adjust the list accordingly. They certainly did not need to cme out and say a flag was 4 years away.

 

[Crow-mo]

I don't think he said we didn't have deficiencies more so that any deficiencies we did have could be filled by returning injured players and senior players stepping up.

all in hindsight utter rubbish.

agree that hindsight has not been kind.

however we only get limited opportunities to improve ourselves each year, and the long term structural needs should be considered.

for example, I really liked what we did this year getting jacobs & tambling, and think there should be at least 6/7 years service out of those moves.

but its not like they filled holes that didn't exist or blind freddy hadn't been crying out for, for years.

 

[Crow-mo]

​

.

Would it really have needed the coach to make such a statement. All the club needed to do was to accept we were not close and adjust the list accordingly. They certainly did not need to cme out and say a flag was 4 years away.

I agree with this too. we made the statements, because we needed to having sat out trade week, and in fact returned home early.

there was implied judgements that needed to be explained, when really the answer was to try harder to fix the list.

when we now say we will need until 2013/2014 to contend, that is tantamount to saying that this was always true if 2010 was an aberration - and at the time, it would have been impossible to say that in 2009.

the real truth seems to be that our softly softly rebuild from 2007 hasn't gone as planned, and as usual there is no accountability for a major strategic **** up.

 

[feenix67]

the real truth seems to be that our softly softly rebuild from 2007 hasn't gone as planned, and as usual there is no accountability for a major strategic **** up.

Im not so sure, I reckon if we have another start like last year and/or arent comfortably in the top 8 come August, the coach will walk

 

[Cap]

agree that hindsight has not been kind.

however we only get limited opportunities to improve ourselves each year, and the long term structural needs should be considered.

for example, I really liked what we did this year getting jacobs & tambling, and think there should be at least 6/7 years service out of those moves.

but its not like they filled holes that didn't exist or blind freddy hadn't been crying out for, for years.

agreed.

I guess our current uncertainty about the quality of our midfield also reflects their inability to fill the now massive hole of retirements - a gap people have seen for years.

I'm not sure what the broader football community think but on this board we have been screaming out for a crumbing forward - yet it has taken them till this year to recruit one.

 

[Hondo]

We saw later in the season when Father Time did what Neil didn't have the balls to do, that we in fact looked pretty damn good without the oldies.

We also had some of our best youngsters actually close to full fitness and a shorter injury list - Tippett and Vince for a start. VB was playing again. A lot of things changed in the second half of the season as well as Burton, Goodwin & co dropping out. You are simplifying it down to one issue to support a pre-set opinion on NC.

When NC dropped Edwards (a beloved oldy as you put it) all hell broke loose among the fans. Goodwin and McLeod's bodies fell over but you pick those 2 while they are on the list. Goody was our captain!

The decision to hold onto the 4 old blokes turned out badly in the end but, as Rendell put it, in the 2009 draft he didn't have any more players to draft if those veterans were off the list. At half salary and with how we finished 09 it was a reasonable decision. In hindsight, we had peaked in 09 but do you expect the club to die wondering? You've got to go for the chance of a premiership or at least a GF appearance if you think you are half a chance. Otherwise, you'll be forever playing kids and finishing 8th-10th.

Had Tippett, VB, Vince, Knights, etc, etc all been 100% fit all year who knows what might have happened. They weren't so inevitably the spotlight fell on the 4 veterans.

Overall I think too much is made of those 4 veterans being retained on the list. Apart from them, it was a young list and we played a lot of young players throughout the season.

 

[Elite Crow]

The decision to hold onto the 4 old blokes turned out badly in the end but, as Rendell put it, in the 2009 draft he didn't have any more players to draft if those veterans were off the list. At half salary and with how we finished 09 it was a reasonable decision. In hindsight, we had peaked in 09 but do you expect the club to die wondering? You've got to go for the chance of a premiership or at least a GF appearance if you think you are half a chance. Otherwise, you'll be forever playing kids and finishing season.

Didn't have anymore players to draft? There are always players to draft, Hitchcock and Barlow would have been handy

Also as for going for a GF, how did those older players go in their last few finals?