What does Neil Craig have to do to keep his job?

[Allefgib]

Exactly. Comes totally down to intentions.

If you pick a specific 22 to best develop the talent currently on your list - its not tanking.

If such a strategy has a higher likelihood of leading to more talent on your list....


It's win/win.

 

[Pariah]

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.

Nick Gill should never have been drafted because his kicking ability.
We had a desperate need for a tall forward but we overlooked Westhoff (who can kick).

 

[Vader]

Nick Gill should never have been drafted because his kicking ability.
We had a desperate need for a tall forward but we overlooked Westhoff (who can kick).

We had a desperate need for a KPP who was ready to go on day 1. Everyone thought Westhoff was a stick insect who would blow away in the first breeze, expecting him to take a year or two before he'd put on enough muscle to be able to function at senior level.

Turns out that Gill missed 1/2 the year through injury (as he did for each of his 3 years on the list). Westhoff debuted before him - and he's still a stick insect.

We got it wrong (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight), but Gill was definitely the obvious decision at the time.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

We had a desperate need for a KPP who was ready to go on day 1. Everyone thought Westhoff was a stick insect who would blow away in the first breeze, expecting him to take a year or two before he'd put on enough muscle to be able to function at senior level.

Turns out that Gill missed 1/2 the year through injury (as he did for each of his 3 years on the list). Westhoff debuted before him - and he's still a stick insect.

We got it wrong (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight), but Gill was definitely the obvious decision at the time.

Since you brought hindsight into the conversation, we should have gone for Ben Warren or Aaron Edwards who were taken at 69 and 81 respectively in the same draft. Nick Gill was seen as a very quick fix and was never the the obvious answer. He meet a short term need to keep the list competitive rather than bottoming out or playing youngsters.

 

[Pariah]

We had a desperate need for a KPP who was ready to go on day 1. Everyone thought Westhoff was a stick insect who would blow away in the first breeze, expecting him to take a year or two before he'd put on enough muscle to be able to function at senior level.

Turns out that Gill missed 1/2 the year through injury (as he did for each of his 3 years on the list). Westhoff debuted before him - and he's still a stick insect.

We got it wrong (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight), but Gill was definitely the obvious decision at the time.

True but he still dominates against us.
My main problem with Gill was his kicking.
Trading for a key forward could have been an option if Craigy didn't hate it.

 

[Allefgib]

Since you brought hindsight into the conversation, we should have gone for Ben Warren or Aaron Edwards who were taken at 69 and 81 respectively in the same draft. Nick Gill was seen as a very quick fix and was never the the obvious answer. He meet a short term need to keep the list competitive rather than bottoming out or playing youngsters.

Look alot of us, me included (me especially?), are saying this stuff in hindsight.

It is the underlying philosphies I have an issue with than the actual detail of the results which is where Vadar often wants people to provide realistic alternatives.

The reality is IF we had been willing to embrace a 'down period' to minimise how long it would be and play our young guys to get games into them, and find and develop more genuine talent rather than topping up I think we'd be in a much better place today. AND people would be more willing to go through the down period.

Sure - point to now and how people are lashing out at teh club over the lack of results. The main reason someone like myself, and many others, have the issue with the down period now is because we denied for the longest time it was necessary. WE STILL DO. Even though we're right slap bang in the middle of it FFS.

Without admitteding we got it wrong - how do they expect people to believe they'll get it right now?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Look alot of us, me included (me especially?), are saying this stuff in hindsight.

It is the underlying philosphies I have an issue with than the actual detail of the results which is where Vadar often wants people to provide realistic alternatives.

The reality is IF we had been willing to embrace a 'down period' to minimise how long it would be and play our young guys to get games into them, and find and develop more genuine talent rather than topping up I think we'd be in a much better place today. AND people would be more willing to go through the down period.

Sure - point to now and how people are lashing out at teh club over the lack of results. The main reason someone like myself, and many others, have the issue with the down period now is because we denied for the longest time it was necessary. WE STILL DO. Even though we're right slap bang in the middle of it FFS.

Without admitteding we got it wrong - how do they expect people to believe they'll get it right now?

But does Neil Craig or even the club honestly believe we are in the middle or even started bottoming out yet? I’d imagine a party line would still consist something like, we will aim to make the finals and then win enough game to go further. We are not rebuilding, re have not bottomed out and we are still in the hunt for a top 4 birth, well I’m simply judging that by the actions and expressions coming out of the club.

With comments like the one attested to Scott Stevens regarding how he doubted we would be in the position if he was available, and the almost automatic selection of Ian Callahan suggests to me that they are still believing we are a contender for a top 4 birth.

We should be implementing a draft philosophy of selecting no one over 20 years of age for the next 4 drafts and create an entire rebuild and we should never have even considered someone like Nick Gill.

 

[Vader]

But does Neil Craig or even the club honestly believe we are in the middle or even started bottoming out yet? I’d imagine a party line would still consist something like, we will aim to make the finals and then win enough game to go further. We are not rebuilding, re have not bottomed out and we are still in the hunt for a top 4 birth, well I’m simply judging that by the actions and expressions coming out of the club.

Arguably the club's biggest failure this year has been in the area of expectation management. Mind you, it's had some pretty big failures.

With comments like the one attested to Scott Stevens regarding how he doubted we would be in the position if he was available, and the almost automatic selection of Ian Callahan suggests to me that they are still believing we are a contender for a top 4 birth.

Who says that Callinan is an automatic selection? At best, he was drafted as a short term solution to our long-term lack of a small, crumbing forward. The recent development of Wright in this role may well have made Callinan obsolete even before he returns from injury.

We should be implementing a draft philosophy of selecting no one over 20 years of age for the next 4 drafts and create an entire rebuild and we should never have even considered someone like Nick Gill.

Let's not forget that Gill was drafted in 2006, a year in which the Crows finished the H&A season 2nd on the ladder, losing to the eventual premiers in the PF. I would agree with you, if we had drafted him in 2008 when it was evident that our premiership window had closed, but this was by no means obvious at the time of his actual drafting.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Let's not forget that Gill was drafted in 2006, a year in which the Crows finished the H&A season 2nd on the ladder, losing to the eventual premiers in the PF. I would agree with you, if we had drafted him in 2008 when it was evident that our premiership window had closed, but this was by no means obvious at the time of his actual drafting.

And this is why we are in the position we are now. Instead of drafting Nick Gill as a quick fix, why not roll the dice with someone like Fergus Watts, John Meesen (he has very good forward tendencies) or even Allan Obst and say to them, you have 22 games to make the position yours. But no, we went out and drafted Nick Gill for a short term plan that was always going to fail because of the stupid game plan being used.

Sometimes in life, you have to take a risk. The bigger the risk, the bigger the reward. Neil Craig didn't take a risk and he wasn't rewarded........maybe he was, he got another 4 years.

 

[srv23]

With comments like the one attested to Scott Stevens regarding how he doubted we would be in the position if he was available, and the almost automatic selection of Ian Callahan suggests to me that they are still believing we are a contender for a top 4 birth.

Wait - go back to this. When did Stevo say this? I hadn't heard that one.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Who says that Callinan is an automatic selection? At best, he was drafted as a short term solution to our long-term lack of a small, crumbing forward. The recent development of Wright in this role may well have made Callinan obsolete even before he returns from injury.
.

He and Wright in the same forward line would be Slippery Pete's wet dream.

 

[Vader]

And this is why we are in the position we are now. Instead of drafting Nick Gill as a quick fix, why not roll the dice with someone like Fergus Watts, John Meesen (he has very good forward tendencies) or even Allan Obst and say to them, you have 22 games to make the position yours. But no, we went out and drafted Nick Gill for a short term plan that was always going to fail because of the stupid game plan being used.

Sometimes in life, you have to take a risk. The bigger the risk, the bigger the reward. Neil Craig didn't take a risk and he wasn't rewarded........maybe he was, he got another 4 years.

Fergus Watts wasn't even on our list by then - we traded him to St Kilda at the end of the 2005 season.

Allan Obst was so bad that he was delisted after just 12 months on our list, not even being allowed to complete his 2-year contract. Suggesting that we promote him to the senior team instead is just ludicrous.

Meesen spent most of 2006 struggling in the Norwood magoos. The odds of him being given a gig as one of our KPP forwards at the time would have been only marginally better than Watts' - and he wasn't even on our list.

The fact that these were the only names you could come up with speaks volumes about how dire our forward line situation was back then - which is exactly why the club had no choice but to draft Nick Gill.

Our failure to win a flag in 2005 & 2006 was not due to Craig's gameplan. It was the right plan, with the right personnel, at the right time. In 2011 it's none of those things. The drafting of Nick Gill in 2006 was not only the right decision at the time, it was the bleeding obvious decision at the time. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[Vader]

He and Wright in the same forward line would be Slippery Pete's wet dream.

Must admit, I wouldn't mind seeing 2 crumbers at Tippett's feet - on the proviso that Walker is omitted to make room for the 2nd small forward.

 

[srv23]

Fergus Watts wasn't even on our list by then - we traded him to St Kilda at the end of the 2005 season.

Allan Obst was so bad that he was delisted after just 12 months on our list, not even being allowed to complete his 2-year contract. Suggesting that we promote him to the senior team instead is just ludicrous.

Meesen spent most of 2006 struggling in the Norwood magoos. The odds of him being given a gig as one of our KPP forwards at the time would have been only marginally better than Watts' - and he wasn't even on our list.

The fact that these were the only names you could come up with speaks volumes about how dire our forward line situation was back then - which is exactly why the club had no choice but to draft Nick Gill.

Our failure to win a flag in 2005 & 2006 was not due to Craig's gameplan. It was the right plan, with the right personnel, at the right time. In 2011 it's none of those things. The drafting of Nick Gill in 2006 was not only the right decision at the time, it was the bleeding obvious decision at the time. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Ed Curnow was delisted (not given a second rookie year) from our list too. Being cut after 1 year from our list does't automatically mean you're "that bad" I know he was re-drafted and still failed to make an impact - but it could be argued that he made just as much of an impact as Nick Gill (freaky essendon game excluded)

 

[Slippery Pete]

Must admit, I wouldn't mind seeing 2 crumbers at Tippett's feet - on the proviso that Walker is omitted to make room for the 2nd small forward.

If this is an attempt at trying to wind me up, you have succeeded.

 

[Vader]

Ed Curnow was delisted (not given a second rookie year) from our list too. Being cut after 1 year from our list does't automatically mean you're "that bad" I know he was re-drafted and still failed to make an impact - but it could be argued that he made just as much of an impact as Nick Gill (freaky essendon game excluded)

Obst got a 2nd chance too - at North Melbourne. He didn't last long there either. For every Curnow decision, that the club (arguably) got wrong, there are 20 examples (like Obst) where they got it right.

 

[srv23]

If this is an attempt at trying to wind me up, you have succeeded.

I just chose to ignore it on the grounds that it will derail another thread into a Walker bitch fight.

 

[srv23]

Obst got a 2nd chance too - at North Melbourne. He didn't last long there either. For every Curnow decision, that the club (arguably) got wrong, there are 20 examples (like Obst) where they got it right.

Yep - I meant that Obst got redrafted by North. Gill didn't last much longer than Obst on an AFL list. For every Podsiadly there's a million examples of drafting mature aged players where they got it wrong...especially at our club.

 

[Big Sledge #32]

And this is why we are in the position we are now. Instead of drafting Nick Gill as a quick fix, why not roll the dice with someone like Fergus Watts, John Meesen (he has very good forward tendencies) or even Allan Obst and say to them, you have 22 games to make the position yours. But no, we went out and drafted Nick Gill for a short term plan that was always going to fail because of the stupid game plan being used.

Sometimes in life, you have to take a risk. The bigger the risk, the bigger the reward. Neil Craig didn't take a risk and he wasn't rewarded........maybe he was, he got another 4 years.

Neil Craig's gameplan used to be very good, ahead of most of the league in fact. In 2 years it was only West Coast's sublime midfield that were able to cut it to pieces.

Problem is as the game moved on Neil hasn't as much, whilst he has adapted 18 man zones he really hasn't changed his gamestyle enough for what he has now.

One of the reasons our style used to work was that it was designed to take advantage of our many average forward options in 06 we had Hentschell, Burton, McGregor & Roo with about 40 goals each to their name. In 09 our strength was hitting up a number of diverse forward options in Tippett, Knights & Porplyzia who all had 40-55 goals.

These days we don't got to the best option anymore we just bomb it long. Tippett who should be our greatest weapon has become our achilles heel.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Fergus Watts wasn't even on our list by then - we traded him to St Kilda at the end of the 2005 season.

Allan Obst was so bad that he was delisted after just 12 months on our list, not even being allowed to complete his 2-year contract. Suggesting that we promote him to the senior team instead is just ludicrous.

Meesen spent most of 2006 struggling in the Norwood magoos. The odds of him being given a gig as one of our KPP forwards at the time would have been only marginally better than Watts' - and he wasn't even on our list.

The fact that these were the only names you could come up with speaks volumes about how dire our forward line situation was back then - which is exactly why the club had no choice but to draft Nick Gill.

Our failure to win a flag in 2005 & 2006 was not due to Craig's gameplan. It was the right plan, with the right personnel, at the right time. In 2011 it's none of those things. The drafting of Nick Gill in 2006 was not only the right decision at the time, it was the bleeding obvious decision at the time. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Are you saying that clubs and coaches can have no positive impact on a player?

In essence a player 'is what he is'?

 

[Vader]

Are you saying that clubs and coaches can have no positive impact on a player?

In essence a player 'is what he is'?

Not sure how you got that out of my post.. but I'll give it a go anyway.

Clubs & coaches can have both positive and negative impacts on their players. However, I'd say that 95% of what makes a player good or bad comes from within. The club can develop the player and give them an environment in which to grow, but if the player doesn't have what it takes physically, mentally and emotionally, then they're never going to succeed at the highest level.

Note that the percentage is much lower for late converts to the game - such as Tippett (who had played less than 20 games of Aussie Rules football when we drafted him), Hunt/Folau (rugby league converts), or players from foreign backgrounds (eg the Irish). These players have less grounding in the game and their habits (both good & bad) are not yet ingrained. The club has a much greater ability to mould and form these players than they do a kid who has been kicking the footy since he was old enough to walk.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Wait - go back to this. When did Stevo say this? I hadn't heard that one.

Scott Stevens didn't. Neil Craig did and he said about 3 or 4 weeks ago.

 

[Vader]

Scott Stevens didn't. Neil Craig did and he said about 3 or 4 weeks ago.

Any chance you could track it down, to give us the full quote for a bit of context?

 

[Freddy Bassett]

Not sure how you got that out of my post.. but I'll give it a go anyway.

Clubs & coaches can have both positive and negative impacts on their players. However, I'd say that 95% of what makes a player good or bad comes from within. The club can develop the player and give them an environment in which to grow, but if the player doesn't have what it takes physically, mentally and emotionally, then they're never going to succeed at the highest level.

Note that the percentage is much lower for late converts to the game - such as Tippett (who had played less than 20 games of Aussie Rules football when we drafted him), Hunt/Folau (rugby league converts), or players from foreign backgrounds (eg the Irish). These players have less grounding in the game and their habits (both good & bad) are not yet ingrained. The club has a much greater ability to mould and form these players than they do a kid who has been kicking the footy since he was old enough to walk.

Not sure about 95%. "Culture" has a massive, massive impact.
Players who got traded from year 2000 to Sydney had a much much better success rate than players traded to Fremantle or Richmond. Dont tell me that has nothing to do with Sydney's strong culture and leadership and development.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Fergus Watts wasn't even on our list by then - we traded him to St Kilda at the end of the 2005 season.

He left that summer we drafted Gill because of a lack of opportunity.

Allan Obst was so bad that he was delisted after just 12 months on our list, not even being allowed to complete his 2-year contract. Suggesting that we promote him to the senior team instead is just ludicrous.

After a good summer, his same development was on track. Give him another 12 months and he was redrafted by the Kangaroos

Meesen spent most of 2006 struggling in the Norwood magoos. The odds of him being given a gig as one of our KPP forwards at the time would have been only marginally better than Watts' - and he wasn't even on our list.

Meesen was AFL ready plug and play after his 2005 drafting. If he could see an opportunity in 2006, his motivation would have been very different. But he wasn't given any opportunity.

The fact that these were the only names you could come up with speaks volumes about how dire our forward line situation was back then - which is exactly why the club had no choice but to draft Nick Gill.

Our failure to win a flag in 2005 & 2006 was not due to Craig's gameplan. It was the right plan, with the right personnel, at the right time. In 2011 it's none of those things. The drafting of Nick Gill in 2006 was not only the right decision at the time, it was the bleeding obvious decision at the time. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The fact they were the only names I could come up with is a determent to our drafting in the 2004/05 draft. Fergus Watts was prime to play AFL in season 2006 but lost faith in getting given a go.