Vader, can I ask why this team has so much perceived talent compared to 2005? Which 4 players in our current list are as talented as Roo, Goody, Edwards and Mcleod?
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
What does Neil Craig have to do to keep his job?
- Thread starter alex_is_on_fire
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jul 19, 2010
- 26,204
- 68,323
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
My comments were in regard to your ongoing belief (not necessarily espoused in this thread, conveniently) that Gary Ayres left Neil Craig with a "veritable Dad's Army."
The profile of the squad as you have outlined it is a far cry from a Dad's Army. It's a profile resembling that of most premiership teams.
It would be if most of the players in that upper age profile were actually A-grade talent. The fact is that we had a smattering of genuine A-graders, but we had far too many B-graders around them. You named 5 A-grade players, I then countered with 12 B-graders. If the ratio had been reversed (or even gone close to 50/50) then we would have won a flag.
As it was, our team finished minor premiers in 2005 & 2nd in 2006, only to stumble in the finals.
Dangermouse has the talent to be as good as any of them, but none of the other players currently on our list will go close.
The strength of our current team is that we have talented kids all over the paddock, all the way from Luke Thompson & Phil Davis in defence, to Kurt Tippett & Taylor Walker in the forward line. Jacobs has the potential to be our best ruckman since Rehn.
The 4 players you've named make up just 18.2% of a 22-man team. Most of the other players in that team were far less talented. Ian Perrie played 116 games for the AFC, Ken McGregor and Rob Shirely both played 150+. If developed to their full potential, the kids we have on our list could/should be far better than the B-graders that they've replaced. This is where our advantage lies.
- Jul 19, 2010
- 26,204
- 68,323
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
But I still dont know where the Dad's army label comes from. None of the A-graders or high-B Graders at the beginning of 2005 were even close to retirement. Hart played for 2 more seasons (and was voluntarily delisted, did not retire), Torney 3 (same story as Hart), Ricciuto 3, Bassett 4, whilst Goodwin, Edwards, McLeod and Burton went on for a whopping six seasons - that's almost half a career.
How many premierships teams have 12 genuine A Graders?
Sloane could be our next Edwards, fights hard plays good footy for years and bearly gets the recognition he deserves outside of the crows fanbase.
- Jul 19, 2010
- 26,204
- 68,323
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I'd love to agree, but I can't.
Edwards' balance, decision making and skill by hand and foot is in another league, not only to Sloane's, but to every player currently on our list.
Wasn't refering him to Edwards in skill, more in the way he goes about his football with a great workrate and how he will probably get a lack of recognition for this.
Unfortunately, footywire don't give average age/experience numbers for games in 2006 (or earlier), so the best I can do is 2007. That's a pity, because the 2007 team was slightly younger as a result of Knights, Maric & VB all taking their place in the team.
Our team which played in R10 2007 had an average age of 26yrs 4mths, with 109.0 games experience.
Our team which played in R10 2011 (last Sunday) had an average age of 23yrs 7mths and just 62.1 games.
The two oldest lists currently going round are Geelong & St Kilda. Geelong's R10 team had an average age of 26yr 9mth and 125.1 games. St Kilda started the season with a team averaging 26yr 8mth, but their subsequent season failure has seen them reduce this to 25yr 5mth and 98.1 games as of R10.
Adelaide's 2007 team, which was already coming off it's peak (in terms of age & experience) is very much comparable with these veteran units.
I did say that I'd settle for close to 50% (ie 7, 8 or 9 of the 17 being A-graders). Geelong & Brisbane both have/had that many, if not more.
Edwards took a long while to develop into the footballer he eventually became. Although he was a member of both premiership teams, he was only on the fringe of the team at that time (he played 17 of 26 games in 1997 and just 15 of 26 in 1998). He didn't really cement his position in the team until 1999/2000.
I'd suggest that the comparisons between Sloane & Edwards are fair, given the comparative stages of their careers.
- Jul 19, 2010
- 26,204
- 68,323
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Maybe. Still think there are elite aspects of Edwards' game that Sloane doesnt have, and never will.
He may bring other attributes to the table though, who knows.
I agree with your initial point on Edwards - his balance and use of the footy were always elite. The 'cementing' was just the lift in his possession rate and getting more responsibility given to him as the likes of Jars etc retired.
Vader - where are our A-graders going to come from to challenge for the flag in the next few years?
Based on your comments we need at least 7 or more... optimistically looking at either your or my lists in Jenny's rating thread, neither of us had many of the existing guys labelled as being A-grade potential.
That's means, based on your thoughts here, we need to find 7 or more A-graders over the next few years and then get 100 games into them meaning our next run at the flag isn't due for what... 5 or 6 years?
Geez Craigy has ALOT to answer for in choosing to not play our younger guys earlier, and moving on the less talented earlier.
Vader - where are our A-graders going to come from to challenge for the flag in the next few years?
Based on your comments we need at least 7 or more... optimistically looking at either your or my lists in Jenny's rating thread, neither of us had many of the existing guys labelled as being A-grade potential.
That's means, based on your thoughts here, we need to find 7 or more A-graders over the next few years and then get 100 games into them meaning our next run at the flag isn't due for what... 5 or 6 years?
Geez Craigy has ALOT to answer for in choosing to not play our younger guys earlier, and moving on the less talented earlier.
I agree that we don't have anywhere near enough potential A-grade players coming through. I think we're better off than we were, because we'll have quality all around the ground though. In the past we had an outstanding midfield and a good defence, with a forward line barely worthy of the name. This current team has talented players all over the park.
The problem NC and the list committee faced was (and remains) the sheer number of ordinary players on our list. It's just not possible to replace them all at once - and if you try, then you end up going backwards as there's usually not much talent to be had at pick #249 in the draft.
What do you suggest he could have done differently to get more A-grade talent onto our list? There were no A-grade players interested in being traded to Adelaide, so you can forget about going down that path. We've made the finals 8 of the last 10 years, so we haven't had access to the deep end of the draft pool. Compounding matters, one of the years we missed the finals was the GC compromised year and the other was a year in which 3 teams qualified for a PP before the 1st round - so our pick #5 (Lance Franklin) became pick #8 (John Meesen).
I agree that we need to get more A-grade talent.. but where do we get it from and where could/should we have picked it up in the past?
The problem NC and the list committee faced was (and remains) the sheer number of ordinary players on our list. It's just not possible to replace them all at once - and if you try, then you end up going backwards as there's usually not much talent to be had at pick #249 in the draft.
What do you suggest he could have done differently to get more A-grade talent onto our list? There were no A-grade players interested in being traded to Adelaide, so you can forget about going down that path. We've made the finals 8 of the last 10 years, so we haven't had access to the deep end of the draft pool. Compounding matters, one of the years we missed the finals was the GC compromised year and the other was a year in which 3 teams qualified for a PP before the 1st round - so our pick #5 (Lance Franklin) became pick #8 (John Meesen).
I agree that we need to get more A-grade talent.. but where do we get it from and where could/should we have picked it up in the past?
Fantasia would of still picked Meesen..... Thank heaven the draft was compromised.
You don't play the undertalented for so long - you play the more talented B+ guys earlier.
You therefore lose games - as we are now- earlier and end up with a shot at lower draft picks. (I do NOT consider this tanking as you expect the guys on the park to go all out to win everygame.)
You trade more aggresively to find the Sam Jacobs types in the need areas (ruck, small forward been our needs for YEARS).
You do this at the end of 2007 IMO.
You therefore lose games - as we are now- earlier and end up with a shot at lower draft picks. (I do NOT consider this tanking as you expect the guys on the park to go all out to win everygame.)
You trade more aggresively to find the Sam Jacobs types in the need areas (ruck, small forward been our needs for YEARS).
You do this at the end of 2007 IMO.
- Jul 19, 2010
- 26,204
- 68,323
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
+ you make decisions on players who won't take you forward, at the end of 2004, 2005 and 2006.
+ you don't opt to recruit MORE of these types of players to fill gaps (Gill, for instance)
Playing players who aren't in the best 22, in the full knowledge that this is likely to result in the team losing games that it could/should otherwise win?
That's very close to the textbook definition of tanking.
Who? The reason Adelaide hasn't done any trading is because these players simply weren't available to be traded.
Probably a good timeframe to start with, given that this was the year it became apparent that the premiership window had slammed closed on the Ayres group of players.
Starting to get a groundhog day feel about it folks.
- Jul 19, 2010
- 26,204
- 68,323
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Playing players who aren't in the best 22, in the full knowledge that this is likely to result in the team losing games that it could/should otherwise win?
That's very close to the textbook definition of tanking.
Who? The reason Adelaide hasn't done any trading is because these players simply weren't available to be traded.
QUOTE]
Depends what you mean by best 22. Best 22 to win your next flag? Or best 22 based on ability today?
I believe Carlton tanked, I'm not so sure Pies did. How do you view it?
Tanking to me is going out and not giving 100% to win the game with the team you play on the day. Everything else is smart management
Do you beleive Freo tanked against Hawks last year leading up to the finals... or just managed their list in the run up to more important games? (my view)
I'd suggest our old school morals are holding us back if we have issues with such management.
As for the who - no idea. And I may be a trifle unfair on this. Trade for picks then. What do you think you could have got for Doughty/Stevens?
So you go even deeper into the draft, knowing that the talent gets thinner and thinner with every passing selection?
What's the point in delisting a B-grade player, then drafting a kid at #97 in the draft, knowing that he only has C-grade potential? How is that an improvement?
At some point there comes a balance, when the list managers have to make a decision. Do we delist player X, given that it will give us pick Y, when we know that the talent pool in this draft only runs to Z players (where Z < Y)?
Historically, teams draft an average of around 4 players each year in the ND. There are a good reasons why it is rare for teams to go into rounds 6,7 or later. It's because the talent just isn't there to be had.
Sure, every year some team will find a diamond in the rough in the RD. We've had our share of success stories there too. The odds of finding a quality player that late are much, much lower than they are for finding one in the top 20.
There really wasn't much in the way of talent drafted after Gill anyway. We had a desperate need, which is why he was drafted in the first place. We've been over this one recently. You lost the debate then and you'll lose it again now if you try to reignite it.
Best 22 based on ability today.
Of course Collingwood tanked in 2005. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
What they did in 2010 was not tanking, because the replacement of under-performing senior players with younger talent did not materially decrease their chances of winning and their objective was not to lose games in order to maximise their draft position. Note that almost all of the players MM allegedly rotated out found themselves traded, delisted or retired at the end of the year. It's highly debatable whether they were even in Collingwood's best 22 at the time of their "rotation".
Tanking is done at the selection table and in the coach's box. It's never done on the field. No self-respecting player is going to give less than 100%, unless they're a prima donna who thinks that their shit doesn't stink (of which Adelaide currently has far too many).Tanking to me is going out and not giving 100% to win the game with the team you play on the day. Everything else is smart management
Do you beleive Freo tanked against Hawks last year leading up to the finals... or just managed their list in the run up to more important games? (my view)
At the selection table, tanking is deliberately selecting a team which does not have the best possible chance of winning. That might be by omitting better players who are fit, or by prematurely sending players off for post-season surgery which would normally have waited until the season was actually over. What you're proposing fits the definition in bold.
In the coach's box, tanking usually takes the form of unusual positional movements. For example, Carlton tanked by pulling Fevola from the ground and having him sit on the bench when the team accidentally looked like winning. These are designed to ensure that the team loses, despite the best efforts of the players on the field.
What was Freo's objective in resting players against Hawthorn? Was it to deliberately lose games, so as to improve their draft position? Or, was it to freshen their players up ahead of the finals series, maximising their impact in September when it mattered most? Rhetorical question.
That may be the case. I guess a premiership win would help me get over the shame of knowing that my team tanked in order to obtain the players who won it. I'd really hate for my team to be subject to ridicule for tanking, the way Carlton supporters have been.
Not much - and therein lies the problem. We really didn't have many players with real trade value. Our genuine guns were untouchable and were probably too old to attract much attention anyway. We had very little in the way of potential young guns, due to poor drafting in the Ayres era. All we had in abundance were middle aged B-grade players - and all we'd be likely to get in return for them would be someone else's middle aged B-grade players. Not exactly a recipe for improvement!
- Jul 19, 2010
- 26,204
- 68,323
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I'm not arguing there was massive talent available at the time. I'm arguing purely that his type of player should never have been picked up. He wasn't ever going to add anything to our side, and anybody who scouted him in the SANFL would have seen that. Perrie and Gill in the same forward line? It was a poor selection, one of the poorest in our history.
Don't give me this need for a forward or plugging a gap rubbish. Gill was a square peg in a round hole.
It really depends on your intent IMO re: tanking vader.
Not playing under talented but currently fit and 'performing' players who you know are not part of your future isn't what I would consider to be tanking if you play players ahead of them knowing you NEED to get games into them. Sure if those younger players end up hitting a wall or prove themselves unworthy after 4 or 5 games, play your 'back-ups'. But to play the 'back-ups' first and foremost just seems foolish desire to avoid 'bottoming out' rather than focussing on the fasted 'bottomed out' period. Especially since we've so often played first string players over the last 5 years who are not 100% fit. If they aren't 100% fit AND you accept that you're trying to build to your next contending side - the decision surely gets easier?
Not playing under talented but currently fit and 'performing' players who you know are not part of your future isn't what I would consider to be tanking if you play players ahead of them knowing you NEED to get games into them. Sure if those younger players end up hitting a wall or prove themselves unworthy after 4 or 5 games, play your 'back-ups'. But to play the 'back-ups' first and foremost just seems foolish desire to avoid 'bottoming out' rather than focussing on the fasted 'bottomed out' period. Especially since we've so often played first string players over the last 5 years who are not 100% fit. If they aren't 100% fit AND you accept that you're trying to build to your next contending side - the decision surely gets easier?
If you're selecting a team which does not represent your club's best chance of winning the game, with the object of losing the game and thereby improving your draft position, then you're tanking. Pure & simple.
Similar threads
