Taylor delisted

[Bleed Red Blood]

AFL website, apparently.

[caj23]

yeah - no official announcement but the afl website has him cut from the list, strange that it wasn't announced along with the others

i'm not suprised if he has been cut, nor would i be if it's just another stuff up on afl.com.au

[Boodnutz]

I heard all rookies except Nick Potter were cut from the list. Unlucky for Luke, apparently he showed some form and promise in the magoos.

[tombomb83]

Im not overly worried about them cutting rookie listed players - I have never heard of any decent player who has been cut from a rookie list and then played well with anohter club.

[liz]

Originally posted by tombomb83
Im not overly worried about them cutting rookie listed players - I have never heard of any decent player who has been cut from a rookie list and then played well with anohter club.

Agree it's rare but not unheard of.

Nathan Lovett-Murray was on the Pies rookie list a year or two back and showed some signs this year for Essendon.

Others may be able to provide other examples.

[Bleed Red Blood]

Milne the ****er was on, Essendon's rookie list at one stage.

One of Carrazzo and Bentick was on a rookie list at one stage, there definitly promising.

[BonBon]

Too many delistings we will end up in debt.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by BonBon
Too many delistings we will end up in debt.
?

[liz]

Originally posted by Bleed Red Blood

One of Carrazzo and Bentick was on a rookie list at one stage, there definitly promising.

Yep - Carazzo was on Geelong's list, and has just been promoted to Carlton's senior list.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by liz
Yep - Carazzo was on Geelong's list, and has just been promoted to Carlton's senior list.

Great player, went all right for the school team. Unlucky at Geelong, played some very good football for their VFL team, but was never promoted, so left for Carlton's rookie list and got a few games this year. The kid has some fair talent.

[graemed]

I may be wrong but was not Cressa delisted from Geelong as a rookie?

[Damien]

Originally posted by graemed
I may be wrong but was not Cressa delisted from Geelong as a rookie?

Yes mixed with home sickness from memory - but Geelong had one of the great midfields going around at that time, so no great surprise.

[j s]

There is a rule that rookies must be either promoted or delisted after a specified number of years. This is to give them a chance to get drafted by another club who might give them more opportunity.

This is why you often see rookies delisted then picked up again.

I don't remember how long the period is - 2 years I think - or whether there are exceptions (imports like Tadhg might have different rules?)

[motorace_182]

Originally posted by BonBon
Too many delistings we will end up in debt.

yeah, the fruitcake is right. If we keep cutting players that arent being played and are costing us $$ then we will end up in debt....good form.

[caj23]

Originally posted by graemed
I may be wrong but was not Cressa delisted from Geelong as a rookie?

Rookie lists weren't in existence back then - not sure whether he was on their senior list or maybe even u/19s

[Bleed Red Blood]

Do we gain anything from delisting a rookie after a year of effort went into them and getting a new batch?

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Bleed Red Blood
Do we gain anything from delisting a rookie after a year of effort went into them and getting a new batch?
We do if the one's we get rid off are not going to make the grade.

[sharp9]

Originally posted by Bleed Red Blood
Do we gain anything from delisting a rookie after a year of effort went into them and getting a new batch? Yes, we do if the new rookie is better than the delisted one.

Persisting with a player who isn't up to it would come under the heading "good money after bad."

Rookies rarely get a second year, that's the facts. It's the same with every team. I guess that we forget that even though they get on to the rookie list with less credentials (ie more hope) than a proper recruit, the decision as to whether or not to keep them for a second year is made with the same criteria as whether or not to delist fully listed players. That is to say that your first year as a rookie is not to demonstrate that you are good enough to deserve a spot on the rookie list, it is to decide whether you are good enough to stay on the full list.

Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that the idea of the rookie list is to produce AFL players, not to develop the abilities of players who are nearly good enough to play at the highest level.

[Bleed Red Blood]

After Bevan's first year he was thought by the coaching staff to not be up to standard, he got the opportunity in his second year to prove them wrong.

How do we know the new rookies will be better?

[sharp9]

Originally posted by Bleed Red Blood
After Bevan's first year he was thought by the coaching staff to not be up to standard, he got the opportunity in his second year to prove them wrong.

How do we know the new rookies will be better?
We don't know the new rookies will be better. That's the footballing department's job to know the correct answer.

AS for Bevan he showed enough to stay on the list. The staff thought he could make it if he, against the odds, improved in particular areas. This is what happened. Obviously they viewed him not as "not up to the standard" but as "having all the right attributes to bridge the gap to the standard!"

That's what I mean by the same criteria as listed players. Anoother player may be closer to AFL standard than Bevo was at the end of 2003, but the coaching staff will delist him if they think that he has pretty much reached his potential. Presumably they felt this way about McGlone.