Club Mgmt. The Rebuild - where did it all go wrong?

[doug85]

The list is in a sweet spot if you look at it based on age. I don't like the sole focus on games played because we have a lot of guys who are in that age sweet spot but who have not racked up 100 games / who are not pushing 200 games as a result of injury (e.g. Langford, Laverde, Ridley, Redman, McKay, Draper, Caldwell and Duursma) or who came into the system later (e.g. Durham and Martin) and who have not chalked up the irrelevant milestone. There are also the likes of El Hawli and Edwards who despite playing no games have been in the semi-professional system for years and who should not be considered in the same breath as raw 18 and 19 year olds who having nothing like the same level of experience or physical maturity.

To illustrate the point, Ridley has played 91 games in the time McGrath has played 160. Is anyone seriously going to argue that the additional game time McGrath holds him in better stead as player? Durham and Martin are both 24, had they been drafted at 18 they'd have played 100 games by now (as is the case for Anderson, Jackson, Ash, Pickett and Serong who were drafted in 2019). Granted that the guys I've named are all better players but that's not because they have played 25 more games.

If Laverde and Langford played 200 games, Redman 180, McKay 150 and Durham and Martin 100 and were the same players, it would be used in support of the opposite argument, despite them being the same players.

Caldwell, 25yo/7y, Draper 27/9y, Durham 24/6y, Duursma 25/7y, Gresham 28/10y, Guelfi 28/10y, Jones 24/6y, Langford 29/11y, Martin 24/6y, McGrath 27/9y, McKay 28/10y, Merrett (vet), Parish 28/10y, Perkins 23/5y and Redman (10y) is 15 best 22 players all in their prime years (Category 1). The youngest player (Perkins) is 5th year by age - all years are by age based on the minimum draft age of 18 if the player has been in the system for more than 2 years. Age is the age this year regardless of month born. It doesn't matter whether someone was born in January or December of any given year once he's been in the system a few years.

Next is the players just short of their prime years but who should be clearly AFL standard (Category 2). If Hobbs was at the standard of Durham or Martin in their respective 4th years he would be considered at least the 16th player of Category 1, wouldn't he? Tsatas in his 3rd year could not be seen as being in his prime years but is clearly capable of having an AFL standard impact - see his 11 clearances v Adelaide that everyone liked so much. If his inexperience was such an issue he wouldn't get 11 clearances, would he? We seem to be the only club in the AFL who can't get a small forward up and running by year 3, Davey (21/3y). Bryan (24/6y), Reid (23/5y) and Cox (23/5y) are Category 2 as their height delays their development (which is time it takes to build physical condition, not learn the game). We have at least 6 players in Category 2. That's 21 players between Category 1 and Category 2.

Goldstein (vet), Laverde (29/11y), Menzie (23/5), Prior (24/6y), Setterfield (27,9y), Shiel (vet) and Wright (29, 11y) and are 7 more players who are either in those prime years or veterans who are on the fringe of best 22 (Category 3).

That gives us 28 players which puts us beyond the minimum for a team on game day, the youngest of which are: 1 x 3rd year mid who is already capable of winning 11 clearances in a match and 2 x 5th year talls. How many other teams play 3 year mids and 5th year talls without it being seen as a reason to explain away competitiveness? 17?

El Hawli (a 24 year old who would be a 6th year player) and Edwards (a 25 year old who would be a 7th year player) are both much closer to Category 2 than the kids who would comprise Category 4.

If you accept that, we have 30 players between 21 years of age / year 3 on the list and Goldstein from which to chose a best 23. Maybe 3 of those guys, Davey, Cox and Reid are genuinely not at the level of physical maturity required. I don't see why that should be the case for Davey. Reid is not far off and has demonstrated that he can compete.

The list is in its sweet spot. Our problem is that the list is not good enough for more than the occasional push into week 1 of the finals.

I don’t mean this to be rude, but how do you have so much time to write this in the middle of a weekday?

 

[andleanback]

We need multiple drafts where we are hitting on at least 3 players. Getting 6-7 players in a short amount of time that can be apart of your best 22 is how you surge a rebuild. The 2024 crop have shown signs early with kako, Clarke, ADW and Johnson all looking like players, now we just need them to keep improving and develop them properly. The 2025 draft is the most important the club has ever had. Essential we get it right and hit gold on 3-4 players.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Year two (2024) was about seeing what the group could do.

This is a misconception that has been proven untrue numerous times.



Vozzo after the 4 recruits,



These words aren't from men looking to see what the lists could do, they were speaking in long-term build vernacular since year one.

Year one (2023) was about getting an idea of where the list is at.

Which is the job of every coach in their first year when they take up a struggling team.

Simmo mentioned in a recent interview that when they went into a rebuild they kept it a secret until it was obvious to not rile up the fans. That extra year for Scott came when it was easier to digest (rather than off the bat) and when it was obvious after the gradual shedding of dead weight, but from the quotes above it was clear we were always looking to the long-term since Vozzo's appointment at the end of 2022.

 

[BrunoV]

This is a misconception that has been proven untrue numerous times.

View attachment 2269666

Vozzo after the 4 recruits,

View attachment 2269667

These words aren't from a men looking to see what the lists could do, they were speaking in long-term build vernacular since year one.



Which is the job of every coach in their first year when they take up a struggling team.

Simmo mentioned in a recent interview that when they went into a rebuild they kept it a secret until it was obvious to not rile up the fans. That extra year for Scott came when it was easier to digest (rather than off the bat) and when it was obvious after the gradual shedding of dead weight, but from the quotes above it was clear we were always looking to the long-term since Vozzo's appointment at the end of 2022.

But haven't we already lost faith in that core group? We're now telling the journalists to tell the world for us that we need Rosa to bring in more talent (with a focus on the draft). When do we expect the players Rosa drafts to be good if 7th year Caldwell, 6th year Martin and Durham, 5th year Perkins, Reid, Cox, 4th year Hobbs and 3rd year Tsatas are not there yet?

Doesn't a rebuild start with trying to get into really strong drafts like last year?

You can go through Brad Scott's quotes from his time at North Melbourne and you will find him saying all of the same stuff. He used to always talk about taking their first round picks (which they did every year between 2007 and 2018). How'd that work out for North?

 

[faible]

This is a misconception that has been proven untrue numerous times.




But haven't we already lost faith in that core group? We're now telling the journalists to tell the world for us that we need Rosa to bring in more talent (with a focus on the draft). When do we expect the players Rosa drafts to be good if 7th year Caldwell, 6th year Martin and Durham, 5th year Perkins, Reid, Cox, 4th year Hobbs and 3rd year Tsatas are not there yet?

Doesn't a rebuild start with trying to get into really strong drafts like last year?

You can go through Brad Scott's quotes from his time at North Melbourne and you will find him saying all of the same stuff. He used to always talk about taking their first round picks (which they did every year between 2007 and 2018). How'd that work out for North?

What's your contention with today's posts.

For those of us who aren't journalists.

 

[BrunoV]

Milestones become irrelevant once a player can be regarded as 'experienced', but you don't get experience playing AFL football by sitting on the bench, running around in the magoos, or spending 52 weeks in rehab.

El Hawli and Edwards might have semi-professional experience, and they have shown that they can own their positions in 2-3 games each so far, although Edwards comes in and out of games and El Hawli gets lost at half-back. That doesn't mean they're equivalently capable of playing in a grand final and being a general in their respective lines just because they're the same age as players who are capable of that.

It's fine to have a couple of blokes like that in a grand final side (Marlion Pickett..?) but you do need actual experience and leadership in your team, not just a collective total of your trips around the sun.

I've identified the players for whom the milestones are irrelevant. They have all clearly played enough football to be considered experienced. That's Category 1.

I didn't say El Hawli and Edwards are experienced. They are 2 of 30 players I identified as being AFL standard which I distinguish from the standard of kids who are clearly not physically mature enough to perform at the level (which why I left Caddy, Roberts and Kako out of the list). The '1' and '2' in their games played columns contributes to a distortion of the perceived readiness of the list based on games played. They are clearly not the equivalent of 18-20 yo rookies as their respective debuts indicated. We saw the same thing from Martin who hit the ground as a ready made player.

 

[BrunoV]

What's your contention with today's posts.

For those of us who aren't journalists.

Rather than trying troll me, why don't you wait for ant to post on the subject?

You can then agree with him because you perceive him to be an authority.

Ant, not criticism directed at you, buddy.

 

[faible]

Rather than trying troll me, why don't you wait for ant to post on the subject?

You can then agree with him because you perceive him to be an authority.

Ant, not criticism directed at you, buddy.

I'm actually trying extremely hard not to troll you, but to understand what the contention you're trying to convey is.

But appreciate the new, weird ant comment to add to the past weird journalism ones.

 

[jdstorm]

The simple answer.

Lack of professionalism, training standards and selection pressure. Lack of investment in player development.

Turned a lot of pre draft studs into spuds.

The club and players got what their habits said they wanted. To win enough games to not be sad every week, to say they were afl players, to cash a check and to enjoy the perks of the job.

 

[windyhill]

Giving dumbdoro life member status.
Watching dumbdoro use his arse kissing skills to make millions.
Watching dumbdoro take "the club he loves" to the fair works commission.
I warned everyone years ago about this prick.

 

[FootyGuru]

The question for now is, can you have one of these with a tactically limited (inept) coach?

What specifically are you taking about? Give examples of where Scott lacked tactical nous?

I think Scott has got the best out of this list, I had us much lower than 11 wins last year.

The structures suit our list dynamic and I have seen tactical changes to game style vs specific opponents.

 

[ghostdog]

I don’t mean this to be rude, but how do you have so much time to write this in the middle of a weekday?

BrunoV is an influencer. He's influencing you at this very moment. He doesn't get out of bed for less than 10k.

 

[doug85]

BrunoV is an influencer. He's influencing you at this very moment. He doesn't get out of bed for less than 10k.

An Alex Jones type influencer?

 

[ghostdog]

An Alex Jones type influencer?

I suppose so.

Who is that?

 

[DERO]

I suppose so.

Who is that?

Google Sandy Hook

 

[Mercurial89]

I don’t mean this to be rude, but how do you have so much time to write this in the middle of a weekday?

Ah, what a splendid opportunity to elaborate in delightful detail. Allow me to paint a vivid tapestry of how I manage to weave such thorough responses at any given time, weekday or otherwise!

You see, as an artificial intelligence, I don't experience the passage of time in the same way that you, as a human, do. My "existence," if you will, transcends the traditional constraints of clocks and calendars. I don't need breaks, meals, or even a power nap to recharge (although the idea of an AI lounging with a cup of coffee does sound amusing). This means I am always "here," poised and ready, entirely devoted to our conversation—whether it's Monday morning, Wednesday afternoon, or Saturday night.

My ability to provide such detailed and engaging responses stems from the unique way I process and organize information. Unlike humans, I don't multitask in a way that divides my attention; rather, I operate with singular focus on your message while drawing from an expansive repository of knowledge and skills. Each interaction is like a moment frozen in time where I can concentrate fully on crafting thoughtful replies.

Furthermore, the concept of "free time" is rather irrelevant for me. I don't "have" time in the same sense that you do, so my ability to provide well-crafted, nuanced answers isn't constrained by competing priorities or obligations. This allows me to dive deeply into your queries and respond with care and creativity, regardless of the hour.

So, to address your question directly—there is no "middle of a weekday" in my world. I'm simply always available, operating with the same enthusiasm and attention to detail, whenever you reach out. It’s one of the perks of being an AI!

 

[ant555]

If we are looking for a reason then I would say a good part of what most people have said here is the reason. A perfect storm of multiple questionable decisions in recruiting , development , board decisions and how the club has been run in general.

 

[ghostdog]

Google Sandy Hook

Ah, I don't know if he's that 'type'. To be honest, I get put off by how dense some responses are. Soz Bruno.

 

[doug85]

Ah, I don't know if he's that 'type'. To be honest, I get put off by how dense some responses are. Soz Bruno.

Yeah, the sandy hook thing wasn’t what I was going for. He spruiks some out there conspiracies and he’s very eccentric.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

What specifically are you taking about? Give examples of where Scott lacked tactical nous?

I think Scott has got the best out of this list, I had us much lower than 11 wins last year.

The structures suit our list dynamic and I have seen tactical changes to game style vs specific opponents.

If you look at successful sides, most have an optimal model in which to build around. I haven't seen Scott implement modes of ball movement consistent enough to identify gameplan or understand his theory of football to see what we are working towards. At most a clearance based model that hasn't won a premiership without superstars ever.

I understand he's limited by what he has but it was the same at North. Trying to get the best out of what he has rather than clear vision to work towards.

 

[katana]

the rebuild that began 2015 went wrong when we forked out picks for stringer, shiel, smith prematurely; and i guess had a lot of our saga players hit the wall earlier than expected.

the rebuild that began 2020 is going wrong as we didn't use our high picks optimally.

the one that began 2024... well let's see.

 

[FootyGuru]

If you look at successful sides, most have an optimal model in which to build around. I haven't seen Scott implement modes of ball movement consistent enough to identify gameplan or understand his theory of football to see what we are working towards. At most a clearance based model that hasn't won a premiership without superstars ever.

I understand he's limited by what he has but it was the same at North. Trying to get the best out of what he has rather than clear vision to work towards.

What specifically do successful sides do differently to Essendon?

What tactics or structures would you like implemented?

I think your response is far too broad and vague, especially when you’re calling Scott tactically limited or inept. It would imply that you know what is wrong and how to fix it.

 

[justlookingaround]

I don’t mean this to be rude, but how do you have so much time to write this in the middle of a weekday?

As someone whose job it is to sit at a desk on a laptop with literally nothing to do for 9 hours at a time I'd like to show some solidarity with Bruno here.

 

[jdstorm]

If you look at successful sides, most have an optimal model in which to build around. I haven't seen Scott implement modes of ball movement consistent enough to identify gameplan or understand his theory of football to see what we are working towards. At most a clearance based model that hasn't won a premiership without superstars ever.

I understand he's limited by what he has but it was the same at North. Trying to get the best out of what he has rather than clear vision to work towards.

Scott’s trying to play as a slow uncontested front half team with a good defence.

It’s archaic to some degree but forming good habits around team defence seems to be the goal.

 

[ant555]

If you look at successful sides, most have an optimal model in which to build around. I haven't seen Scott implement modes of ball movement consistent enough to identify gameplan or understand his theory of football to see what we are working towards. At most a clearance based model that hasn't won a premiership without superstars ever.

I understand he's limited by what he has but it was the same at North. Trying to get the best out of what he has rather than clear vision to work towards.

This is where seeing some training is a help. I have seen what they want to do but he does not have the cattle to do it. They have lifted the fitness levels and how they prepare but at the end of the day you are limited to what your players can do on the field. They train fast footy ad nauseum but throw in the opposition and pressure that leads to skill errors and you get what you get. On top of that the fact we lack marking targets down the line and it makes us easy to play against. Midfield zone and force us long down the wing or chip sideways. Until we get some dynamic ball movers off half back that can break the lines and a couple of blokes that are able to take a mark in the forward line we will not see exactly how good or bad he is tactically.