Most of them could be delisted and wouldnt be missed.Originally Posted by Ludwig
Most of them could be delisted and wouldnt be missed.
Does this make the future look a bit more cheery?
24 and Under team
FB Gould Melican O'Connor
HB McInerney Dawson Ling
CB Sheather Mills Stephens
MI Warner Rowbottom Gulden
CF Florent Bell Heeney
HF Hayward McCartin Blakey
FF Papley McDonald Campbell
Ruck Amartey
EMG McLean Wicks Clarke Carruthers
What positions are they? Never heard of them.
They're not positions. Just part of The Player Matrix, a system that won't become widely used until after 2030. I'm just giving RWO a special sneak preview.
Our list at the moment is great for building towards the next 4-5 years. The reality is we have maybe one player, Rampe, in the competitions best 50 players. You could mount an argument for Lloyd, but if you put every player against a wall, he wouldn't be in the first 50 selected to win you a game.
When we were contending we have 6-7 players that you could mount an argument for at any given moment.
We'll have that again in a few years, but not right now. So, be prepared to be wow'd and also disappointed next year, as consistency will become our issue. That margin between our best and worst will begin to close in time, but it will be most apparent over the next two years, as our best gets better. Just remember to step back and look at the bigger picture and what we're building towards - not a given game or a 4 week block of matches.
Interesting comment seeing that you have named three of them (worst 22) in your starting 22.
Indeed. There are plenty in our starting 22 who I would not miss.
Though I should correct myself. Saying 'I wouldn't miss' them feels callous considering they are still Bloods who are giving their all to improve our fortunes. I simply mean there are a lot on our list that I don't think are quite good enough to take us where we need to get to.
Good thing you aren't a list manager
The number was 2 (the 3 came from rating Fox and COR equally). The reason for this is that, excluding Naismith, we have a list size of 42, so after making a best or worst 22, there will remain only 20 players for the other list, so 2 have to be shared with both lists.
We typically turn over 8 or 9 players a year. There are many clubs doing more. So it's normal, you might say, to have around 8 or 9 players that won't make it, just over a period of 1 year, and obviously more over a period of several years. Some label these players as unproven. Sometimes using the word pejoratively, as if they've already failed, when it's more typically the case that the player simply hasn't played enough games at AFL level to indicate if that player can develop to an AFL standard. It's more statistical than actually picking out specific players who will definitely not make it.
For example, if I think both Amartey and McLean are each a 50-50 chance of succeeding to become regular AFL players, but there's not enough time or game experience to be more precise, it's reasonable to say that one will make it one will not, without knowing which one it will be. Statistically speaking, one will surprise and one will disappoint. I believe one will be delisted, but I'm not sure which it will be.
There are a lot of these 50 percenters on every list. A couple of years ago I would have thought an unproven Stoddart had a better chance of AFL success than an unproven McInerney. Time has passed and it's McInerney who became the one that rapidly improved to become a regular in the senior side. Our current list has a number of these players. How can we make any judgment about Carruthers or O'Connor at this point in time. With any luck, the picture will clarify after next season. There is also likely to be a player like Ling, who you think should be a very high chance of making the grade, but has several injury setbacks that cloud the picture.
Sorry for being so long-winded about this, just to make the point of not confusing lack of information with lack of value. I often say that it's more the weight of numbers that best indicate the chance of future team success. I see a list that has a lot of young players that are very talented, but may not be ready for much AFL footy next year. I see this as a good thing. There will be unproven players on the list, because the proven players are not giving up their spots too easily to these upstarts, but the overall picture is looking positive.
As long as we're not playing another Donut King. Paul Chambers 12 games, 9 of them no kicks, 2 of them no disposals. Averages per game: 0.75 kicks, 0.33 marks, 2.00 handballs, 10.17 hitouts.
"Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final
The positive for the 21 season is that our unproven talent will have regular games against the new VFL East Coast competition which will be tougher and game changing for our whole squad. If you don't make the senior team , coming back from injury or one of our young talent not quite ready for seniors, you will be playing against tougher teams than the NEAFL and will get the chance to mix it each week. We obviously need top up the 40 odd players we have already and I still think we will offer Paddy McCartin a spot. We need backup to Buddy and Reid as they are not able to play all the games in the season and our young McDonald who will need to get up to AFL standard in the next season.
Possible VFL team (emphasis on possible!)?
B Ling Brand Melican
HB COR Gould Carruthers
C Gulden Bell Taylor
HF Gray Amartey Ronke
F Wicks McLean Sheather
Foll Sinclair Warner Clarke
Int O'Connor ? ? ?
- - - Updated - - -
I would imagine that would be a competitive side?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks