Tom Boyd actually said...

[mjp]

"...with new draftees, you would know in LESS THAN A MONTH whether or not they were going to make it. Some would come in and you would just say "He's gonna play AFL". Others....".

He actually named one of the others (Roarke) who stuck at it and played some good footy...

"Some blokes come in and you can just tell there is NOTHING they can do to learn how to kick under pressure...".

It was a pretty savage segment on a normally very mild mannered show (Danny/Boyd).

SO:

#1: Is he right?
#2: If he is right, what are we gonna do about it??

[ledge]

I think that’s right . You can just tell

[ledge]

Rourke was one out of the blue . He was extremely good footballer but never actually reached his potential but you could see he had it . Bloody injuries .

[bornadog]

I don't agree fully. It does depend on the player and whether they are a tall or mid size, and then how they grow as they get older. 17/18 year olds are still growing and that can effect their mobility, strength, and even agility especially someone like an Ayce Cordy. Ayce couldn't compete with men whereas he was killing it in the juniors as he was so much bigger than the other kids.

Another example is Picken who was a skinny kid and rejected by many clubs till he was in his early 20s. On Boyd's point, maybe his attitude and his determination would have said, this kid will make it.

[GVGjr]

There are always exceptions but essentially I think Boyd is right. Clubs coaches, recruiters and most savvy players would often know if they have either taken a risk on a player that isn't going to pay off or if they've got it right fairly and they should know this early.
Injuries at an early age might shape the success or failure rates as well and then of course there are some players who just need more time and prove the initial assessment as wrong.

There are just so many variables when assessing players, taller players are in the main going to need more time and the more mid sized players typically make some progress early on.

Making an honest assessment early on is the key and being prepared to take a short term loss is important because on occasions players are maintained on a list for too long.

[FrediKanoute]

Blanket statement. Too broad and generalist. I agree with the sentiment though. There are some guys that just dont or cant translate the attributes that made them draftable in an open age elite competition. Josh Schache, Pat Vezpremi, Tambling.....just a few who were drafted with high picks, but couldnt convert it to sustained performance.

[macca]

There needs to be a third category... is he going to be an eker?

[Mofra]

Can we invoke the 80/20 rule here?
80% he's right, 20% he's wrong.

I submit Podsiadly/Menegola as evidence for the 20%

[jazzadogs]

Define 'make it'.

I'm probably more interested in the false positives - the ones who you thought "yep they're gonna make it!" during the first month, but then they dont. Did Andrejs Everitt and Jarrad Grant make it? They were both disappointing for the draft range they were picked at, but 131 and 95 games respectively might be enough to have 'made it'.

The other thing I would say is there are players, across all levels, who are very good trainers - and that doesn't always equate to match day. So a month of training would need to have some pretty comprehensive match sim to avoid any false positives.

[bulldogtragic]

As a guy who’s been at two AFEL clubs. I think he knows more than me. If he’s right, then you wonder what we see in some fringe players. Or are we know a good amount of the list won’t “make it” but want the best fringe players we can get. It’s an interesting comment from Boyd.

[EasternWest]

There needs to be a third category... is he going to be an eker?

The only criteria that really matters.

[soupman]

I suspect it's more true for the natural players and less of an indicator for the role boys.

For instance Morris I imagine presented well at training professionally but you'd watch him running with the ball and his kicking style and have doubts whether he had it.

[ledge]

Maybe he means ones who are just too slack and don’t have the drive or don’t realise what it takes.
We all know people who had the talent to make it but just didn’t put in.
I think that’s why clubs now interview the parents, teachers etc to see if they are a committed person.
Let’s face it we can all pick those players within a month if your training with them.

[Grantysghost]

I've heard Tom say this. Sometimes I do think he's a bit of an elitist to be honest, surely we back the recruiters over the players... however; I kind of do it too. I look at some players and think, no chance.

I think with some of the speculative/lower picks, it's going to be that it may take some time and first impressions aren't necessarily a fair indicator of what a player will become.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

He's mostly right, which is why I don't like it when we hang onto players too long (i.e. McNeil).

There are always players who surprise you though.

[The Underdog]

I've heard Tom say this. Sometimes I do think he's a bit of an elitist to be honest, surely we back the recruiters over the players... however; I kind of do it too. I look at some players and think, no chance.

I think with some of the speculative/lower picks, it's going to be that it may take some time and first impressions aren't necessarily a fair indicator of what a player will become.

He did use VDM as an example of a player he thought had AFL traits it due to his elite speed.

[macca]

I suspect it's more true for the natural players and less of an indicator for the role boys.

For instance Morris I imagine presented well at training professionally but you'd watch him running with the ball and his kicking style and have doubts whether he had it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Prestigiacomo
Morris would be one player I doubt would be picked up as a youngster in the ND or even Rookie draft, based on the various skill levels required now for defenders and durability. One being, good kicking skills . Even if 1% off physically , can be found out.

Zac Dawson(166 games) , Darren Gasper,(228 games) , Simon Prestigiacomo(233 games!) similar types of players which would be mature age rookie or SPP type pickup.
I hope Gardner can turnout to be a Morris type recruit . Anything more than 100 games is a great result.

[jeemak]

I kind of feel it's bullshit and isn't bullshit all at once.

There's enough players who have "it" who don't make it, to be counterbalanced by those who didn't seem to who do. But it's good conversation using specific examples/ experiences that are relatively limited to explain a league and history wide phenomena.

How much experience does Tom Boyd really have? More than me, sure, but for a lot of his time in the AFL he'd have been too far up in his own shit to notice what was happening around him.

[SquirrelGrip]

I like this discussion and he is mostly right (maybe 80/20 as Mofra said). We just love the romance of the 20. They are our favourites - Tony Liberatore, Dale Morris, Liam Picken...

It made me think though - of any given AFL list, what percentage actually "make it"? Half?

[Testekill]

You can generally tell when someone has the attitude required to to make it within a month. It's probably harsh but you can tell who has the drive and who doesn't.

[GVGjr]

There are players like Schache who you can see the potential in but have a hell of a job unlocking it and then there are players like Morris that don't necessarily have a high ceiling but get there because they have one or two elite traits as well. It's a hard science and not an overly accurate one.

[Mofra]

There are players like Schache who you can see the potential in but have a hell of a job unlocking it and then there are players like Morris that don't necessarily have a high ceiling but get there because they have one or two elite traits as well. It's a hard science and not an overly accurate one.
I think that's the rub - you can be scrappy, poorly skilled, slow etc BUT you need at least one elite trait to compensate for it.

Cross - terrible acceleration but elite endurance and commitment
Picken - scrappy but super courageous and elite commitment
Boyd - plucked out of Frankston 2nds due to his 'quick hands'
Dahlhaus - I'll always maintain that no player ever managed to get back up after getting knocked down quicker than peak Dahlhaus. It meant he was never really out of the contest
Ben Hudson - magnificent beard

Players who have a deficiency but everything else seems ok seem to be the guys that just never click. Poor Brodie Moles fits in here, decent footballer but a 'chucker' (would vomit before every game due to nerves) so had that nervousness that meant he never got to his potential.

[The Pie Man]

I recall Rocket saying something similar and that Kirk was the only one in his time coaching that turned it around.

Are you concerned clubs give up on players too quickly mjp?

[GVGjr]

I think that's the rub - you can be scrappy, poorly skilled, slow etc BUT you need at least one elite trait to compensate for it.

Cross - terrible acceleration but elite endurance and commitment
Picken - scrappy but super courageous and elite commitment
Boyd - plucked out of Frankston 2nds due to his 'quick hands'
Dahlhaus - I'll always maintain that no player ever managed to get back up after getting knocked down quicker than peak Dahlhaus. It meant he was never really out of the contest
Ben Hudson - magnificent beard

Players who have a deficiency but everything else seems ok seem to be the guys that just never click. Poor Brodie Moles fits in here, decent footballer but a 'chucker' (would vomit before every game due to nerves) so had that nervousness that meant he never got to his potential.

I'll just add a few more comments to some of the players you listed

Cross - Great hands, helped other players become better.
Picken - Terrific endurance and versatile, went from a defender to a forward and just found a way to contribute
Boyd - Unrelenting focus, demanded others to get serious. Did whatever role that was asked of him.

[mjp]

I recall Rocket saying something similar and that Kirk was the only one in his time coaching that turned it around.

Are you concerned clubs give up on players too quickly mjp?

Well....I know players think like this. But I actually think the opposite...I think 'clubs' hold on to players too long and are too quick to give them a second contract...

I hate a lot about the system right now and I think things are getting 'worse' for players who aren't 'ready' at age 18. It's actually getting impossible and I'm not sure the game is benefitting...

Those comments relate to another discussion though.

[Testekill]

I think that's the rub - you can be scrappy, poorly skilled, slow etc BUT you need at least one elite trait to compensate for it.

Cross - terrible acceleration but elite endurance and commitment
Picken - scrappy but super courageous and elite commitment
Boyd - plucked out of Frankston 2nds due to his 'quick hands'
Dahlhaus - I'll always maintain that no player ever managed to get back up after getting knocked down quicker than peak Dahlhaus. It meant he was never really out of the contest
Ben Hudson - magnificent beard

Players who have a deficiency but everything else seems ok seem to be the guys that just never click. Poor Brodie Moles fits in here, decent footballer but a 'chucker' (would vomit before every game due to nerves) so had that nervousness that meant he never got to his potential.

Dahlhaus was like a rubber ball in his first couple of seasons and his agility was also fantastic. Unfortunately that led to his body breaking down and us being more than willing to move him on.

[Dog]

Tom Boyd should probably stick to lighter and more empowering topics.

[JanLorMill]

Tom Boyd should probably stick to lighter and more empowering topics.
Strange comment.
Not allowed to give an informed opinion?

[Bulldog4life]

Tom Boyd should probably stick to lighter and more empowering topics.

For a first post. Courageous Dog.

[Dog]

Strange comment.
Not allowed to give an informed opinion?
I say he should stay in his lane, to be frank. As relating to his role as a mental health advocate.

From the perspective of any recent draftee into any AFL environment.

[hujsh]

I say he should stay in his lane, to be frank. As relating to his role as a mental health advocate.

From the perspective of any recent draftee into any AFL environment.

That's one aspect of Boyd. He's also a former professional athlete and a part time entertainer. I'd rather he give an actual opinion than just trot out the usual lines every current and recent player gives even when they work in the media.

Whether it's accurate or not is another aspect but I don't doubt he believes it and there may be some truth to it (even if it's a bit of a generalization)

[Dog]

That's one aspect of Boyd. He's also a former professional athlete and a part time entertainer. I'd rather he give an actual opinion than just trot out the usual lines every current and recent player gives even when they work in the media.

Whether it's accurate or not is another aspect but I don't doubt he believes it and there may be some truth to it (even if it's a bit of a generalization)
That's a really good point. I'd like your comment to save a needless reply but just figuring it out. But it is refreshing hearing more substantial stuff from any media. I may have been a tad defensive.

[Twodogs]

I say he should stay in his lane, to be frank. As relating to his role as a mental health advocate.

From the perspective of any recent draftee into any AFL environment.

I think Boyd has just as much right as anyone else to his opinion on any aspect of footy at
AFL level. And given his experience at seeing more than most draft level players come into the system he's probably got more than most knowledge of this topic.

It doesn't mean mean that we have to agree with it though.

[jazzadogs]

I say he should stay in his lane, to be frank. As relating to his role as a mental health advocate.

From the perspective of any recent draftee into any AFL environment.

It feels like something that couldn't be more in his lane, tbh

[jeemak]

I'd be really interested if he objectively thought that after his first month that he himself was going to make it......or whether others did. I mean, he played a few magnificent games and then mostly flat handed marking attempts for the rest of them.......

[Twodogs]

Personally I think that like a lot of big guys as he got more experience and became more used to his size he would have become a better and better player.

It's a tragedy that we'll never find out.

[jeemak]

Personally I think that like a lot of big guys as he got more experience and became more used to his size he would have become a better and better player.

It's a tragedy that we'll never find out.

Agree, that he may have.

But I also think there would have been enough astute judges, more astute than he, who may have thought at some point this guy might not make it.

Anyway, I don't know why I'm even bothering with comments I haven't heard or not bothered to look further into.

[ledge]

I'd be really interested if he objectively thought that after his first month that he himself was going to make it......or whether others did. I mean, he played a few magnificent games and then mostly flat handed marking attempts for the rest of them.......

Read his book he always had doubts on making it.

[bornadog]

Personally I think that like a lot of big guys as he got more experience and became more used to his size he would have become a better and better player.

It's a tragedy that we'll never find out.

His performance in the 2016 GF showed that he could have become a good player. He was only young and still maturing and would be at his peak now at age 28.

[MrMahatma]

Surely Jason Tutt looked the goods early doors?

[Twodogs]

Agree, that he may have.

But I also think there would have been enough astute judges, more astute than he, who may have thought at some point this guy might not make it.

Anyway, I don't know why I'm even bothering with comments I haven't heard or not bothered to look further into.

He got a lot of grief from the Monday Experts up until his 2016 finals performance.


His performance in the 2016 GF showed that he could have become a good player. He was only young and still maturing and would be at his peak now at age 28.

That's what I'm basing my opinion on. When he needed to go up a level he had it in him to go up to that level.

[soupman]

Personally I think that like a lot of big guys as he got more experience and became more used to his size he would have become a better and better player.

It's a tragedy that we'll never find out.

I think this actually brings a lot of clarity to it.

I think Boyd's statement generically works in terms of assessing whether a player might have the ability to be a chance of being an AFL player, but the way it is presented is that you can just pick the guys who are going to have careers or not after week one.

I guess it's probably very apparent the guys who definitely won't make it, but the 70% of players who are in the mix qre probably much harder to classify.

Bailey Dale clearly has "it" but Lukas Webb probably does as well, just didn't eventuate.

[Twodogs]

I think this actually brings a lot of clarity to it.

I think Boyd's statement generically works in terms of assessing whether a player might have the ability to be a chance of being an AFL player, but the way it is presented is that you can just pick the guys who are going to have careers or not after week one.

I guess it's probably very apparent the guys who definitely won't make it, but the 70% of players who are in the mix qre probably much harder to classify.

Bailey Dale clearly has "it" but Lukas Webb probably does as well, just didn't eventuate.

Dale's a great example of what we are talking about IMO. Look at how long it took him to finally become a consistent AFL quality player. He'd play 2-3 good (or even great) games a year but he must have only hung on to being on the list by his fingertips for a few years at the beginning of his career.

But the people who saw him day in, day out must have seen an elite quality or two and an attitude that convinced them to retain him. I'm sure that if we left it up to the supporters he would have been long gone before he came good.

[jeemak]

Bevo was on the record as saying Dale and Williams were too good not to be playing AFL, so he had to put them in positions until he found where they'd best play.

The issue I have with Boyd's comments is that he's unwittingly or not, suggesting he and other people in his position or similar know better than a whole bunch of experienced people who give out contracts as their profession.

And honestly, his type of view transcends AFL down to club football. Players get together, and they make their minds up about who is good, who isn't, who's going to make it at whatever level and who won't, and those views are limited.

It's great stuff for podcasts, but it's bullshit. Tom Boyd compared to professional club talent managers and coaches doesn't know anything. He's done six preseasons concentrating largely on himself and that's his exposure to the system, what the hell would he actually know outside of his biased view on who he thought he wanted to play with versus who he didn't?

Six preseasons.....and he knows who's going to make it. Give me a break.

The guy's 28 and has been out of the system for four or so years, take what he says with a grain of salt.

[ledge]

Bevo was on the record as saying Dale and Williams were too good not to be playing AFL, so he had to put them in positions until he found where they'd best play.

The issue I have with Boyd's comments is that he's unwittingly or not, suggesting he and other people in his position or similar know better than a whole bunch of experienced people who give out contracts as their profession.

And honestly, his type of view transcends AFL down to club football. Players get together, and they make their minds up about who is good, who isn't, who's going to make it at whatever level and who won't, and those views are limited.

It's great stuff for podcasts, but it's bullshit. Tom Boyd compared to professional club talent managers and coaches doesn't know anything. He's done six preseasons concentrating largely on himself and that's his exposure to the system, what the hell would he actually know outside of his biased view on who he thought he wanted to play with versus who he didn't?

Six preseasons.....and he knows who's going to make it. Give me a break.

The guy's 28 and has been out of the system for four or so years, take what he says with a grain of salt.

Sometimes you just know .
Eg Chris Grant , Templeton , Bont , you just knew after the first game .
It would work the opposite too.
I’m not going to name bad ones but we as fans can see some aren’t going to make it after a game .
Sometimes you just know .
Now that’s not saying he didn’t try and support those ones but after a month of training I would say you could tell some just weren’t up to it .
I believe we are looking to deep into the statement . Your right though take it with a grain of salt.
We all meet people whether it’s work or sport that you know just aren’t up to it after a week or two.

[bulldogtragic]

Yep Ledge. I think far too much energy going into one comment.

[mjp]

...
The issue I have with Boyd's comments is that he's unwittingly or not, suggesting he and other people in his position or similar know better than a whole bunch of experienced people who give out contracts as their profession.

And honestly, his type of view transcends AFL down to club football. Players get together, and they make their minds up about who is good, who isn't, who's going to make it at whatever level and who won't, and those views are limited.


...it's a great post jee.

I think 'everyone' is right in this situation. Suggesting you know what an 18yo might or might not do when they might have moved interstate and be living independently for the first time, when it might be there first time exposed to ANY kind of training standards (let alone 'elite' (lol) standards)...well...you don't.

Likewise, us suggesting players don't 'KNOW' pretty quickly after seeing someone join the group whether they have what it takes or not...well, in many cases they do.

I know I was involved in coaching a tall American bloke who arrived and joined the AIS program...if you observed him a month in, well...no chance. But he's played games, played in finals, done OK. It's not one rule fits all but that there is pretty much ZERO input from players now with regards list management and team selection...should they have a voice?

[hujsh]

I'd recommend listening to the proper context. About 9:30 onwards (the controversial part at 9:50 onwards). In proper context he talks about things like, 'ability to be coached' and not just whether they have elite traits. So while some might look like they can't compete against men or handle the contested side of the game (Declan Hamilton) or something wrong with their mentality/attitude (Goatz probably), it's not as elitist at it may seem in isolation.

I don't know how accurate his 90% figure is but I bet he's probably reflecting what a lot of us feel about certain players on the list when we wonder how they keep getting retained when it just looks like they don't have IT.

[Go_Dogs]

Is Boyd right? Probably.

You can generally see a few AFL level traits come to the fore very early and in glimpses of what players will be able to do.

Some things can be improved with coaching but that?s going to be incremental and you are who you are to an extent.

The other thing that becomes clear after a month is application and preparation. Are the draftees at the level of professionalism required and good to taking on feedback, pushing themselves to get fitter and better, learning the roles, engaging with the culture and team mates etc.

Yeah. The senior players probably have a good idea pretty quickly.

I don?t expect there are too many that get written off after a month though?

[HOSE B ROMERO]

Great podcast btw. I listen to all the eps. Tom can be quite self depreciating. I didn't read too much into the comment. Maybe mostly you can when you're in that environment day in day out.

[Mavericks]

Generally Tom is correct but there will always be outliers like Moz, Picko and M Boyd.

[ledge]

Generally Tom is correct but there will always be outliers like Moz, Picko and M Boyd.

I would say if anything he would have thought those guys would make it in the first month due to their determination/drive.

[jeemak]

I would say if anything he would have thought those guys would make it in the first month due to their determination/drive.

No he wouldn't have. Nobody did.

[hujsh]

I would say if anything he would have thought those guys would make it in the first month due to their determination/drive.


No he wouldn't have. Nobody did.

I could maybe see it with Picken. Always had that speed and was recruited as a tagger. You wouldn't pick him to the be player of the finals series but a solid 100 game tagger sure. Morris did impact in his first year and was an amazing all around athlete in hindsight. You'd have to get over his terrible disposal first. Boyd though? Good luck with that.

[bornadog]

I could maybe see it with Picken. Always had that speed and was recruited as a tagger. You wouldn't pick him to the be player of the finals series but a solid 100 game tagger sure. Morris did impact in his first year and was an amazing all around athlete in hindsight. You'd have to get over his terrible disposal first. Boyd though? Good luck with that.

Both players were late comers, ie into their 20s, so obviously recruiters didn't see it in them early on as 18 year olds. This is where Boyd is wrong.

[Sedat]

No he wouldn't have. Nobody did.
Didn't Morris put Andrew McLeod to sleep in his first ever senior AFL game from memory? From that moment on, you knew he was a lock to have a fantastic career.

[hujsh]

Both players were late comers, ie into their 20s, so obviously recruiters didn't see it in them early on as 18 year olds. This is where Boyd is wrong.

Well Boyd's perspective would be 100% based on when they arrive at training. No matter how old they are when what the recruiters didn't see in their junior years, they've seen something now and Boyd's theory is the ones that won't make it, once they're in that AFL environment, you can spot it within a month 80-90% of the time.

[bornadog]

Well Boyd's perspective would be 100% based on when they arrive at training. No matter how old they are when what the recruiters didn't see in their junior years, they've seen something now and Boyd's theory is the ones that won't make it, once they're in that AFL environment, you can spot it within a month 80-90% of the time.

Except Picken had a preseason wiuth Pies and two with US and they didn't see it.

I just don't accept a blanket view that fits all like Boyd's.

[Go_Dogs]

Didn't Morris put Andrew McLeod to sleep in his first ever senior AFL game from memory? From that moment on, you knew he was a lock to have a fantastic career.

Believe he played on McLeod and Ricciuto. Held his own well in both cases. Darcy may have kicked a bag too. A wonderful day was had living in Adelaide at the time.

[Bulldog Joe]

Believe he played on McLeod and Ricciuto. Held his own well in both cases. Darcy may have kicked a bag too. A wonderful day was had living in Adelaide at the time.

Yes

A great game and also Chris Grant's 300th.

[hujsh]

Except Picken had a preseason wiuth Pies and two with US and they didn't see it.

I just don't accept a blanket view that fits all like Boyd's.

To be fair Boyd isn't saying it's right 100% of the time. And to be doubly fair for every Boyd or Picken there probably are 8-9 others that didn't make it who never really looked like it. Whether it's a Declan Hamilton who has some skills but not the strength, a Goetz who you'd have to imagine had serious attitude issues, or guys who simply aren't good enough like McComb and Hayes.

We don't really know his personal judgement on who he thought would struggle aside from being surprised with Roarke Smith and Zaine Cordy playing as much footy as they have and being impressed with Vandermeer. He's not going to tell us who he was right about because it's not really fair to those players.

Getting back to the original question raised by the thread. Don't you have any examples of players you felt the club held onto too long despite knowing what their limits were? Gave them an extra year or two, re-rooked them maybe, and you couldn't help but wonder why? I know you've championed the list management on the topic of delisting enough players but don't you feel there are maybe some strange ones we held onto for too long that were never going to make it?

I definitely have and would love to see us rotate those fringe players out quicker if they don't show signs of making it. I think we've done a pretty good job of that this year and hope to see more of the same.

That said I don't have an issue with the club trying players who don't work out, just let them go sooner maybe.

[bornadog]

Don't you have any examples of players you felt the club held onto too long despite knowing what their limits were? Gave them an extra year or two, re-rooked them maybe, and you couldn't help but wonder why? I know you've championed the list management on the topic of delisting enough players but don't you feel there are maybe some strange ones we held onto for too long that were never going to make it?

There are some players we probably held on to, too long, but I am sure there are good reasons. Take the years of recruiting JUH and Darcy where we had no picks in round 2 or even 3 (I am going on memory). The choice would have been do we use a Pick 85 or 90 (whatever it was) to recruit some complete unknown or do we take someone from the VFL that we know or leave someone on our list that probably won't make it, but has shown a little bit of ability.

Another good example is Rourke Smith - go back and search him and you will find posters wanting him delisted, saying he is no good, we held on to him too long - yet he turned out ok. Injuries killed his career. Then you have Hayes which you mentioned. Hayes showed some ability and when he was finally delisted ended up at Carlton - must have shown something to be recruited twice.

In the end there are reasons for keeping and delisting players, but you can't afford to delist 10 plus players - eg North. 6 to 8 is about right, if you have the picks/trades -0 and that is what we have done over the Bevo years.

[hujsh]

There are some players we probably held on to, too long, but I am sure there are good reasons. Take the years of recruiting JUH and Darcy where we had no picks in round 2 or even 3 (I am going on memory). The choice would have been do we use a Pick 85 or 90 (whatever it was) to recruit some complete unknown or do we take someone from the VFL that we know or leave someone on our list that probably won't make it, but has shown a little bit of ability.

Another good example is Rourke Smith - go back and search him and you will find posters wanting him delisted, saying he is no good, we held on to him too long - yet he turned out ok. Injuries killed his career. Then you have Hayes which you mentioned. Hayes showed some ability and when he was finally delisted ended up at Carlton - must have shown something to be recruited twice.

In the end there are reasons for keeping and delisting players, but you can't afford to delist 10 plus players - eg North. 6 to 8 is about right, if you have the picks/trades -0 and that is what we have done over the Bevo years.

Ah, but that's exactly what we did with the likes of Morris, Picken, M.Boyd, JJ, Dahl. These guys are the exception yes, so the question is do you roll the dice knowing you might have a 10% chance of finding a good AFL player, or hold on to the guy who has shown he won't be that but might play a role for a few games next season. I think, for many different reasons, we've been too hesitant to roll the dice in recent years.

I love the crop of draftees this year and it feels like a long time since we've had a batch of 5 18 year olds roll into the club with all the promise that brings. Even if only 1 of Freyja, Smith and O'Donnell play 100-200 games, that's a big win (assuming Croft and Sanders are a lock for that). I just hope next year we don't go back to 3 picks and 1 current player being (re)rookied as our list changes.

Roarke is an exception but even then the people calling for him to be delisted weren't entirely refuted. He played how many games post 2021? Granted a lot were probably calling for him to go because he's no good or he skates with Bevo (the greatest of sins).

[soupman]

There are some players we probably held on to, too long, but I am sure there are good reasons. Take the years of recruiting JUH and Darcy where we had no picks in round 2 or even 3 (I am going on memory). The choice would have been do we use a Pick 85 or 90 (whatever it was) to recruit some complete unknown or do we take someone from the VFL that we know or leave someone on our list that probably won't make it, but has shown a little bit of ability.

I did a post that kind of addresses this, and absolutely we should be turning these guys over.

Here it is:


It would be so much more beneficial for list turnover and uncovering new talent if we made the call, that if they aren't in the mix by year 2 for gametime they get cut, and if they make it to year 3 if there aren't clear signs of being an AFL talent by then then we cut them. Would also apply if they have two stagnant seasons as not comfortably being in the mix.

If we followed this rule we would have cut:
Ben Cavarra after 2, Khamis after 2, Porter after 2, Greene after 2, Lynch after 2, Roarke after 2, Collins after 2,
Will Hayes after 3 years, Young after 3, Webb after 3,
Bedendo now after 3 years, Sweet* after 3 years (two seasons ago),
and Garcia has stagnated at that year 2 stage for years 3 and 4, so i think would be cut now after 4 years, likewise Crozier is just sitting there

We do that and we free up 24 one year contracts in Bevo's reign, which is 2 and a bit a year, and the total cost is basically one and a half solid seasons from Roarke and a handful of serviceable games from Young. This is moneyball.


*Sweet may also be able to disprove this, but he plays a weird position and contrary to popular opinion is still not a sure thing.

[hujsh]

I did a post that kind of addresses this, and absolutely we should be turning these guys over.

Here it is:

That's actually a great summary.

[Mofra]

Didn't Morris put Andrew McLeod to sleep in his first ever senior AFL game from memory? From that moment on, you knew he was a lock to have a fantastic career.
Chris Grant's 300th too IIRC

[GVGjr]

Chris Grant's 300th too IIRC

Was it Brad Johnsons?

[bornadog]

Was it Brad Johnsons?
Brads was at Marvel.

[bornadog]

I did a post that kind of addresses this, and absolutely we should be turning these guys over.

Here it is:

Thanks, I missed that or forgot about it.

[Bulldog Joe]

Chris Grant's 300th too IIRC

Morris played his first game in Round 5 2005 in Rocket's first year as coach.
It was Grant's 300th game.
Darcy dominated the second half as a forward.
Unfortunately it was Luke's last really good game for us as he did his knee at Geelong the following week.


Was it Brad Johnsons?
Brad Johnson played his 300th in round 1 (I think 2009) and kicked about 3 goals in the last 5 minutes to win the game.

Interesting that both of those milestone games were against Adelaide and both at Docklands (Colonial/Telstra/Etihad) - or whatever its naming rights name was at the time.

[Go_Dogs]

Morris played his first game in Round 5 2005 in Rocket's first year as coach.
It was Grant's 300th game.
Darcy dominated the second half as a forward.
Unfortunately it was Luke's last really good game for us as he did his knee at Geelong the following week.


Brad Johnson played his 300th in round 1 (I think 2009) and kicked about 3 goals in the last 5 minutes to win the game.

Interesting that both of those milestone games were against Adelaide and both at Docklands (Colonial/Telstra/Etihad) - or whatever its naming rights name was at the time.

Brad?s was also against the Crows from memory? Cooney had 30+ and kicked 3 goals

[Bulldog4life]

To be fair Boyd isn't saying it's right 100% of the time. And to be doubly fair for every Boyd or Picken there probably are 8-9 others that didn't make it who never really looked like it. Whether it's a Declan Hamilton who has some skills but not the strength, a Goetz who you'd have to imagine had serious attitude issues, or guys who simply aren't good enough like McComb and Hayes.

We don't really know his personal judgement on who he thought would struggle aside from with Roarke Smith and Zaine Cordy playing as much footy as they have and being impressed with Vandermeer. He's not going to tell us who he was right about because it's not really fair to those players.being surprised

Getting back to the original question raised by the thread. Don't you have any examples of players you felt the club held onto too long despite knowing what their limits were? Gave them an extra year or two, re-rooked them maybe, and you couldn't help but wonder why? I know you've championed the list management on the topic of delisting enough players but don't you feel there are maybe some strange ones we held onto for too long that were never going to make it?

I definitely have and would love to see us rotate those fringe players out quicker if they don't show signs of making it. I think we've done a pretty good job of that this year and hope to see more of the same.

That said I don't have an issue with the club trying players who don't work out, just let them go sooner maybe.

Aside from their play wrestle or fight whatever you want to call it I thought Tom and Cordy were tight.

[hujsh]

Brad?s was also against the Crows from memory? Cooney had 30+ and kicked 3 goals

Nah Cooney didn't have a goal in Johnno's 300th. I think I know the game you're thinking of because I was there. He kicked 5 at the MCG against them and had 30+

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=2543

Brad's was against the Crows and Cooney had nearly 30.

[Go_Dogs]

Nah Cooney didn't have a goal in Johnno's 300th. I think I know the game you're thinking of because I was there. He kicked 5 at the MCG against them and had 30+

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=2543

Brad's was against the Crows and Cooney had nearly 30.

Ahhh good get.

[Jumping Jones]

I?m guessing the stats on how often the ?turn around story? proves to be true and getting a high performing recruit are similar at ~1 in 10 for both. If you had 1 in 5 from the draft become elite then there would be no discussion.

[D Mitchell]

I wonder how Tom would have assessed Brownlow Medallist and multi premiership player, Robert DiPierdomenico who played 1 senior game in 66 rounds between 1975 and 1978, 48 between his first and second games and 99 reserve games altogether. I'm not knocking Tom, his 2016 Grand Final heroics surely entitle him to beatification and he must have performed another miracle since to earn canonisation and the accompanying honorific.

[FrediKanoute]

I wonder how Tom would have assessed Brownlow Medallist and multi premiership player, Robert DiPierdomenico who played 1 senior game in 66 rounds between 1975 and 1978, 48 between his first and second games and 99 reserve games altogether. I'm not knocking Tom, his 2016 Grand Final heroics surely entitle him to beatification and he must have performed another miracle since to earn canonisation and the accompanying honorific.

Fair point though I think its a different era now. Basically, the reserves in the 60's and 70's was a proper 2nd tier competition and the ideal place to blood young kids to make them ready for AFL. Now it isn't and if anything too much VFL footy can breed bad habits.

[jeemak]

I'd recommend listening to the proper context. About 9:30 onwards (the controversial part at 9:50 onwards). In proper context he talks about things like, 'ability to be coached' and not just whether they have elite traits. So while some might look like they can't compete against men or handle the contested side of the game (Declan Hamilton) or something wrong with their mentality/attitude (Goatz probably), it's not as elitist at it may seem in isolation.

I don't know how accurate his 90% figure is but I bet he's probably reflecting what a lot of us feel about certain players on the list when we wonder how they keep getting retained when it just looks like they don't have IT.

I just listened to the episode, the comments with context are probably less emphatic, I guess as per my post a couple of pages back it's about perspective and the narrow one he brings to the table.

As you go down the draft board each year every pick becomes more and more speculative, just playing the numbers you'd bet 80% (or whatever the number is) of draftees won't have a substantial AFL career. The issue I have with the comments is the piece around knowing in the first month whether a player will make it. If it rings true, as Tom says basically our entire playing list knows who (and to accuracy of 90%) of Sanders, Croft, Freijah, O'Driscoll and Smith won't make it based on interactions to date.

This is after a bit of match sim in the last couple of weeks before the break, running and fitness work to get them up to speed, weights, drilling, meetings, and induction after relocation. Notwithstanding any time out of training in the managed/ rehab group, individual programs, eating requirements and forecasted weight gain/ growth.

What's the point of development coaches, or development via the second tier? Why not have two drafts if by early January you already know who from the first draft isn't going to make it? One at the start of preseason and one after a month or so? Actually scrap that, not sure we need another excuse for the AFEL to do weird things involving eighteen year old's and put it on TV over two nights.

Anyway, I'd love for Tom to read this thread. Hopefully it'd give him a laugh over the impact of probably unrehearsed comments laced with a bit of hyperbole made on a podcast, generating content to keep us all going over the break.

[hujsh]

I just listened to the episode, the comments with context are probably less emphatic, I guess as per my post a couple of pages back it's about perspective and the narrow one he brings to the table.

As you go down the draft board each year every pick becomes more and more speculative, just playing the numbers you'd bet 80% (or whatever the number is) of draftees won't have a substantial AFL career. The issue I have with the comments is the piece around knowing in the first month whether a player will make it. If it rings true, as Tom says basically our entire playing list knows who (and to accuracy of 90%) of Sanders, Croft, Freijah, O'Driscoll and Smith won't make it based on interactions to date.

This is after a bit of match sim in the last couple of weeks before the break, running and fitness work to get them up to speed, weights, drilling, meetings, and induction after relocation. Notwithstanding any time out of training in the managed/ rehab group, individual programs, eating requirements and forecasted weight gain/ growth.

What's the point of development coaches, or development via the second tier? Why not have two drafts if by early January you already know who from the first draft isn't going to make it? One at the start of preseason and one after a month or so? Actually scrap that, not sure we need another excuse for the AFEL to do weird things involving eighteen year old's and put it on TV over two nights.

Anyway, I'd love for Tom to read this thread. Hopefully it'd give him a laugh over the impact of probably unrehearsed comments laced with a bit of hyperbole made on a podcast, generating content to keep us all going over the break.

I'm not 100% sure on Boyd but suspect Danny would love all the discussion about something said on the podcast