Where is Nick Smith at, then. He's had a couple of senior games, a terrific year in the 2's as captain.
Surely he would be ready for some more consistent senior action.
Where is Nick Smith at, then. He's had a couple of senior games, a terrific year in the 2's as captain.
Surely he would be ready for some more consistent senior action.
Definitional issue: Barlow is aged 22 years. He is not a 'kid'. I suspect he should have been well and trully scrutinised, sorted, categorised by now, but he has not. He's been in the system for 4 years and perhaps due to spending most of his development playing against part-timers old-timers and school kids in Canberra, has some shocking habits. Basically, he's soft. 22 years should be the start of his peak years, but instead he's just starting out and looks timid and uncertain.Originally Posted by liz
The thrust of the OP is not about the behaviour or otherwise of the RWO posters, but rather a seeming unwillingness of our coaching panel to make selections based on merits.
Re comparisons with Richmond, I think you are creating a false dichotomy. It's not an either or approach. All that is being argued is a need to set a threshold for entry to the senior team which is purely performance based and is blind to age*, experience, premiership credits etc. The performance of Richmond, Hawthorn etc is irrelevant. If the senior players perform, they will be selected. A performance based culture where players are motivated by equal opportunity and recognition of merit.
(* note - it shouldn't be entirely age based, as the value of a player is higher at a younger age due to their future potential, so if anything, there should be a slight younger age bias IF the club accepts it is not in the premiership window).
How Buchanan and Crouch continue to get selected astounds me. Mathews is another who was kept too long. At various times, it is clear we have carried so called 'senior' players. One wonders if this is somehow related to the 'leadership group' exercising its prerogatives at the selection table. Equally, there is a cohort of players headed by Brabazon who must wonder what they need to do to get a game. If they are capable, get them in. If they are not, then in my book 4 years is plenty of time to make a call to move them on.
I think a similar mistake as made by the ACB with regards to some of the senior cricket players. A policy that creates a tight knit and consistent team works wonders in a strong team but in a weak team is counter productive. I wonder what Phil Hughes would have achieved in the lost season against South Africa had Haydn been tapped on the shoulder as he should have been. Ditto Symonds vs. McDonald North.
As for your list of AA players, I think you are being charitable to a couple of names there, good as they have been over the last half decade. And maybe that's the point - we now need to look ahead, not to the past if we are going to continue to enjoy success.
He had observed that people who did lie were, on the whole, more resourceful and ambitious and successful than people who did not lie.
In football terms, Barlow is very much a kid. He's played 12 games of senior footy.
And if he doesn't qualify, exactly which kids are we debating on here? Because if you discount Barlow, you have to discount Laidlaw, Thornton and Brabazon too. White and Bird played at the weekend. So we're really just talking about Vez (injured), Currie (injured until recently), Murphy (injured until recently and now apparently reinjured, Heath (injured), Hannebury (at school), DOK (two solid years of debilitating injuries), Smith (injured), plus Johnston, Meredith, Orreal and MOD (who was close to selection last week.
Which ones am I being charitable about? ROK, Kirk and Bolton all made the AA top 40 list last season. McVeigh and Malceski are hardly "past it". Jolly has been getting better each year. Are you willing to label Goodes as "past it"?As for your list of AA players, I think you are being charitable to a couple of names there, good as they have been over the last half decade. And maybe that's the point - we now need to look ahead, not to the past if we are going to continue to enjoy success.
(1) I will bet that for different reasons, ROK, Kirk and Malceski will not be AA this year.
(2) I think you missed my point re age and by defining 'kid' as person with limited senior experience your logic becomes circular. I think the term you are looking for is 'person of limited senior experience', but that is not what the OP is about.
(3) Not sure what you mean by 'discounting' and what made you think I was 'discounting' anyone. Your word.
He had observed that people who did lie were, on the whole, more resourceful and ambitious and successful than people who did not lie.
What is your point re age, then? I really have no idea.
In terms of 'discounting' you say Barlow doesn't count as a "kid". Hence the use of the word "discount", derived from "count".
So what? Give him game time in the seniors to develop. He doesn't have to play key position.
Canberra will teach him nothing.
You are defining a 'kid' in terms of games played. If you define it in this way, it's a moving target. reduction absurdum, if all our list could not play until they were 25 years then they would still be defined by you as 'kids'. Practically, this means that you are allowing Barlow grace because he wasn't given opportunities when younger. If he was, he would either be a better player for it now or not on our list. Hence, it is circular - you can't complain about not playing kids when you define the term 'kid' as a person who has not played games.
You have framed your argument around experience when the OP was about age. Although not independent, age and experience are different constructs. QED.
Regarding 'discounting', I think you are confusing 'not counting' with 'discounting'. Discounting, according to my Oxford English Dictionary means 'taking value from or reducing a number or amount', which in formal terms is obviously different to not counting at all.
With regards to the other players you mention, whether I refer to them as 'kids' is age related. My personal definition of 'kid' is someone who young, let's say 21 or younger. Someone who is 22 is technically a third of the way through their career if they are a good player and can play to 30. I'll ignore the injury thing as confounding .
He had observed that people who did lie were, on the whole, more resourceful and ambitious and successful than people who did not lie.
Ive got a tough little five year old who more than holds himself and at times is dominant against the six and seven year olds. I can make him available as he is quite talented (well he is in my opinion ) and has a desire to play for the swans. He sounds like he fits the bill
In all seriousness, I agree with liz. You cant bleat about "playing the kids" and then crucify them after a couple of trial games and one main round. Barlow wasnt the reason we lost on Saturday night. If you want to play kids you have to understand that they will have good games and they will have some pretty ordinary ones. Its just that in winning sides its easy to hide those ordinary games but in losing sides they become the hope which at times seems hopeless.
Even Grundy is only 22 and its absolute rubbish to say a 22 year old is not a kid. Most premiership teams have a core of 27 year old type players (yes , i know Hawthorn didnt but they are the exception and not the rule) who have played senior footy for at least five to seven years. Its that premiership window that we all talk off. If you look historically, Richmond didnt have a recruitment philosophy that was much different to Hawthorn , its just that Hawthorn made the right choices (eg roughhead, hodge, franklin) and richmond has made some ordinary to fair ones (ie oakley nicholls, tambling, polo ).
If barlow, grundy, brabazon et al get more than a season of games and they get game time and then they dont live up to expectations , then start analysing their worth but if they are more than capable at reserves level then dont start relagating them back their until they have had a chance.
As for playing on form, i think if you used this system , the same guys we currently have would be the 22 every week as from all reports these "has beens" (and I use that term very loosely and sarcastically) pretty much dominate at reserve level and therefore under the "in form" rule would be straight back playing in firsts.
Does he play in the Canberra League?
Last edited by Legs Akimbo; 31st March 2009 at 10:05 AM.
He had observed that people who did lie were, on the whole, more resourceful and ambitious and successful than people who did not lie.
To discount also means to disregard, to leave out - eg "he discounted that as a possible explanation."
discount
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/discountVerb
1. to leave (something) out of account as being unreliable, prejudiced, or irrelevant
2. to deduct (an amount or percentage) from the price of something
Noun
1. a deduction from the full amount of a price
2. at a discount below the regular price
So by determining Barlow not to be a kid, you are saying he is irrelevant, and hence he is being discounted from the discussion of whether a) the kids should get a go; and b) whether they should be ridiculed if they don't play well.
I am still none the wiser on your definition of kid. Since you think Barlow doesn't qualify, are we agreed that Moore, Grundy, Jack, Brabazon, Thornton, Laidlaw are all irrelevant to this discussion as well?
Nah its not strong enough
Good discussion LA and liz - agree with parts of what you've both said.
I wouldn't be playing Johnston yet either. Perhaps look at him later in the year but with Grundy and White doing well, it's probably not the time to introduce another KP player.
The ones we should be looking at are Brabazon, Smith (when fit), D.O'Keefe (ditto), Currie (ditto), O'Dwyer and Meredith. IMO, the senior players who should be looked at over the course of the year are Crouch, Buchanan, Ablett and Barry (when they come back obviously) but it's too early to be making those calls on all of them.
To the people calling for all of the kids - which players do you want to drop?
I called Barlow 'gutless' in the other thread - way too tough as I've never seen him 'pull out'. He's just not too keen to attack the footy. His form doesn't warrant a spot in the 22 at the moment which is unfortunate, as he looks like a player who is going to benefit from regular appearances in the seniors.
I don't know about everyone else but I'd like to remain competitive this year, throwing half a dozen kids at once will ensure that we're not competitive. Then we really will be like Richmond of years gone by.
Bloods
"Lockett is the best of all time" - Robert Harvey, Darrel Baldock, Nathan Burke, Kevin Bartlett, Bob Skilton
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks