Beautifully put BSA5. Having watched Carltons insipid second half last night, 13 goals to 2, Bombers with 21 fit players (Watson injured), Fev refusing to follow his man down the field, total reliance on Judd (who was well beaten by Welsh)... they were awful. They need more than a nasal spray.Originally Posted by BSA5
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MT
That Brisbane played in 4 consecutive grand finals and still managed to do a good job of re/building their list?
Sit down or i swear to God i'll have you shot.
Spot on...Adelaide also, with simillar picks to us, seem to be already on the rise with a good group of young players coming through.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MT
Brisbane's achievement in playing in 4 grand finals was outstanding. But after scraping into the finals in their first non-GF year in 2005, they have finished outside the top 8 for the last 3 seasons. And despite retaining much of the core of their very best players from their "dynasty", including Black, Brown and Power.
Port were almost as good during that period as the Lions - indeed they were as good during the H&A but just fell to bits in the finals, 2004 excluded. Since they started to "rebuild" they have had one excellent year, 100+ pt GF thrashing aside, and have been pretty pathetic in the other two completed seasons. This year looks to be more of the same. They certainly don't appear to be any more competitive a unit than the Swans, despite being arguably a couple of years further in the "rebuild" and having had access to significantly higher draft picks than the Swans.
West Coast managed to be so pathetic just two years after winning a GF (and supposedly embarking on a dynasty of their own) that they qualified for a priority pick - and could yet get a pre-first round priority pick in 2009.
All this goes to show just how hard it is to stay at or near the top of the ladder for an extended period and to bounce back quickly, even while retaining a core of superb players.
Guess it depends on who you called their very best players during the premiership years.
Whilst they still do have the ones you mentioned and of course they're guns -these days they're also moving forward without others such as Voss, Leppitsch, Michael, Lynch, Johnson, Scott, Lappin, Akermanis, Hart, etc.
My point is that after four consecutive grand finals, imo, they still drafted wisely enough to bounce back without bottoming right out.
The years after the grand finals were hardly disasters. They finished 11th, 13th, 10th and 10th... and still (usually) chose not to take the easy option of just topping their list up hoping for a quick fix.
Players that weren't high picks such as Adcock, McDonald, Drummond, Rischitelli, Hooper, Patful, Sherman, Merret and co, are the ones that were picked during the premiership years. Not one of them were taken before pick 30 but all of them have played a part in them currently sitting 5th on the ladder.
Anyway, it's probably one of those 'matter of opinion' discussions, really.
I like the way they've gone about it and i think they've drafted quite well especially given the cattle they've lost.
Last edited by Ruda Wakening; 29th June 2009 at 08:09 PM.
Sit down or i swear to God i'll have you shot.
I still think the Swans management miss the point when using the excuse that they have to prop up the list in the Sydney market.
The Sydney market is not about winning, I think its about entertaining. How boring is it to watch the SWans squeeze out a win after hugging the boundary all night. It is no wonder people stop going even when the Swans are winning.
The Club should refocus the game plan and make it more exciting to watch and create another identity like Plugger was during his time at Sydney.
They tried with Biffo Barry but it didn't work. We need another key position hero. Well several would be nice.
Time to think outside the square. Lower admission, food and drink prices and watch the crowds come back.
In memory of my little Staffy - Dicey, 17.06.2005 to 1.12.2011- I'll miss you mate.
Cuz !!
Better food and drink at cheaper rpices would be great but ain't going to happen. I'll eat at Fox
But to randomly pick a couple of Adelaide's superstars who are going to rocket them back up the table: Jason Porplyzia, who was already a failed rookie, and who any of the 16 clubs could have picked up, even at rookie level, for 2 years until he finally got his 2nd shot at stardom via the PSD when he was 21; and Taylor Walker, who Adelaide got to sign as a scholarship player first, no doubt influenced by the fact that Broken Hill is culturally far more aligned to Adelaide than Sydney (and BH being included in the scholarship scheme is a rort, as it's an Aussie rules town and Aussie rules regions of NSW are meant to be excluded).
A point largely overlooked in the 'ND v RD v F/S v scholarship v PSD v international rookie v trade' argument is that once a kid is over the minimum draft age, they have already been overlooked by everyone, and so where they actually get picked up in the end is irrelevant; the point is that they were available for no more than the price of a spot on a roster. You find talent wherever you can. Makes no difference at all to Adelaide that Porplyzia and Walker weren't 18 year olds taken in the 3rd round of the ND.
I reckon that all of Roos, Schwatta, Plugger, Schauble, Maxfield, BBBH, Ball, Davis and Jolly had a bit of class about them. At least on a good day.
The issue is not undervaluing the 2nd round draft pick (certainly not in '07 and '08, when our needs were different to '05 and '06). Tippett now looks like a freakin' bargain (if he doesn't walk to GC); but he looks like that because 15 other clubs (and Adelaide in its 1st round pick), after doing due diligence and looking at all the information, thought there were 30-odd players better than him. It now seems they were wrong; which happens amazingly often. But it wasn't because clubs thought, 'ahhhh, it's only 2nd round, who cares who we pick?'
The issue is 'should you trade, or should you just use your picks on young kids?' And all of the evidence about, e.g. the number of games you'll get out of Rhyce Shaw vs the number of games you'll get out of your average #46 draft pick, suggests that yes, you should trade.
Players pretty much never can be kept hiding under rocks any more; all 16 clubs have the ability to know about the strengths and weaknesses of say the best 150 candidates for drafting; and then based on needs, likely availability etc, zero in on those that they want to know heaps about. I think our larger football dep't spend is on other things, apart from us doing more reconn than, say, Collingwood on potential draftees. The fact remains, even with clubs forever getting more professional at recruiting, trying to pick 150+ game players among 18 year olds is, always was, and always will be, a crapshoot. The only variable is the extent to which the odds are in your favour or stacked against you.
With rookie promotions you have to compare apples with apples. By definition rookie promotions do not cost 2nd round draft picks. Promoting a rookie involves saying, 'we believe that this kid is a better bet than the player we'd get at pick 72 in the ND'. And in that comparison, they do have the legitimate advantage that you're satisfied of their work ethic, they're not a prima donna, they have an improvement curve against adults (and don't just look great against skinny 17 yos); all things that you can research and have a good general idea about with outside draftees, but not know 100% until they arrive at the club. Of course you get rookie promotions wrong sometimes, like all clubs get some list management decisions wrong; but among kids who were available for the first time in the relevant draft (i.e. ignoring mature and recycled draftees) have a look at who was available at the relevant ND picks we would have had if we'd promoted none of those players, and try to tell me our young playing stocks would be much stronger. Even with the wonderful cherry-picking you can do in retrospect, the fact remains that by definition we are not preferring our promoted rookies to the next superstar playing in the U/18s national champs.
So far as Sydney has failed in list management, it's been by not making the tough call on more marginal seniors (I'm thinking NOG, Playfair and latterly Leo Barry) and 'trying, but not quite there' youngsters in '07 and '08, with the result that it will have little motivation to make the call on them in '09 because we will have half-a-dozen spots to fill just through the older brigade going out backwards; and regardless of what the 'when your time comes, cut everyone and bottom out hard' fundamentalists might tell you, trying to add 10 players in one year is not only bad for your playing stocks in the next year or two, it's also bad for list balance in the longer term.
Incidentally, Adelaide aren't exactly poster children for the wonders of the ND: at least among Adelaide fans, the amazingly long string of failures that they've picked with their first round ND pick has reached legendary proportions. It's good for them that Patrick Dangerfield (2007) looks like a keeper and Richard Douglas (2005) is starting to fulfil his promise; because apart from those two, you have to go back to Brent Reilly in 2001 (a guy who most non-footy tragics would struggle to even recognise the name of) for the nearest thing to a 'success' this decade.
I posted this on the Playfair thread but it seems much more relevant here:
If all the exits suggested by this forum come to fruition we'll be struggling to put a team on the park!
Those suggested as gone, being traded or being cut on RWO:
Hall
DOK
Malceski
Barlow
Fosdike
Kennelly
MOL
Noggy
Leo
Laidlaw
Henry
Crouch
LRT
Bucky
Bulldog
Reg
Smith
MOD
Bevan
Brabazon
Thorton
In reality we need to make room for Murphy and perhaps Orreal who I don't think are eligible to continue as rookies. Pyke and Gilchrist can stay as Rookies. Plus we need to make room for at least four draft picks to refresh the list.
At this stage only Leo, MOL and Fossie are sure exits. I have a sneaking suspicion that Kennelly will be back. Forget trades, as no club will want to trade with GC17 and WS18 (?) buggering future drafts. Besides with the exception of Goodes we have nothing of value to trade. (Even ROK didn't attract an acceptable offer last year) Hall won't be a trade as he will be out of contract and he'll be lucky if more that one club will want him anyway in preference to a draft pick. IF he goes it will be via the PSD. I suspect he'll stay.
So to accommodate 2 rookies and four draft picks they need at least 6 exits. 3 are known already. Perhaps people are looking at assuming Hall, Playfair and Kennelly will be gone. If this all eventuates we are going to lose 4 blokes who have played KPs. We are then putting all our eggs in the Johnston/Murphy basket.
Those who have the greatest power to hurt us are those we love.
I've wondered about this - I'm sure all the recruiters have been thru their game theory permutations, but it seems to me as I see it that if you have a good chance of losing an uncontracted player to GC, clubs would be desperate to try and do a trade instead - if that's the case, and given the heightened value of early draft picks, there's clearly a chance for some real "bargains". I'm certainly not convinced that the Swans won't be prepared to go the marquee recruiting route if they think they might find their next Plugger/Bazza.
The Swans may well trade a pick(s) for a "bargain". In my post, I was reacting to Swans fans who are suggesting we could trade some of our players such as Ablett, Buchanan etc. which clearly is highly unlikely.
Those who have the greatest power to hurt us are those we love.
Yes, quite agree with that - tho presumably we'd be in the same position as others if faced with losing a White, Bird, Vespa etc for nothing to GC or making a trade.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks