Development of Players - Questions

[bornadog]

Is it supported by facts BAD?

Ok, I should have said quality KPPs.

[GVGjr]

Ok, I should have said quality KPPs.

And I'm saying its OK to add role or needs based players rather saying they're arent there. If you don't replace a ruckman for example and you then cop an injury you shouldn't then blame injuries as the problem. We've deliberately run tbe risk of going light on for KP depth and we are being tested but the issue isnt an injury list its more about how we structured thd playing list

[AshMac]

Nice article on a Lipinski playing VFL in the midfield to learn, it’s done him the world of good.
If anyone can find it , I saw it on FB but can’t find it now.
Went something along the lines of Bevo and him having a chat about not being an outside mid and if he wants to play AFL he needs to be an inside one, so he went back to VFL and played inside mid, now he has really come of age.
To be honest I’ve always seen him as being an exceptional player.

Article on Lippa:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/why...2abf63868d7ce6

Pretty thin overall but leans towards the importance of playing games in a role to properly develop in that position.

[bornadog]

And I'm saying its OK to add role or needs based players rather saying they're arent there. If you don't replace a ruckman for example and you then cop an injury you shouldn't then blame injuries as the problem. We've deliberately run tbe risk of going light on for KP depth and we are being tested but the issue isnt an injury list its more about how we structured thd playing list

I still stand by what I said at the start of the season. 4 Rucks on the list was enough. Circumstances have now reduced that to 3, plus one of those is stuck at fullback. Perhaps we should have had one more as Sweet is also developing.

Overall we are ok for KPPs - Naughton, Schache, Young, added Gardner and Cordy plays that role. What my point was is they are all young and we need to be a bit patient as we know they will not mature till mid 20s. So recruitment and planning is not the issue.

[Danjul]

I still stand by what I said at the start of the season. 4 Rucks on the list was enough. Circumstances have now reduced that to 3, plus one of those is stuck at fullback. Perhaps we should have had one more as Sweet is also developing.

Overall we are ok for KPPs - Naughton, Schache, Young, added Gardner and Cordy plays that role. What my point was is they are all young and we need to be a bit patient as we know they will not mature till mid 20s. So recruitment and planning is not the issue.

Cannot agree.

Trengove is not a ruckman. He is just a good footballer who has held usually his own when called on.

That leaves 3 ruckmen. Never saw Boyd as a ruckman. He always struggled in that role but tried his best. And was he really going to get many games. Tended to play only half of a season.

That leaves English as our senior genuine ruckman (20 games??) and Sweet (0 games).

none of these four have ever had 30+ hitouts in a game and we rarely see hitouts to advantage. Yet we see opposing ruckmen get 50 hitouts and more.

Cordy might have been a KPP 25 years ago but he simply doesn’t have the build for it now. The fact that he has been used as fullback and CHB simply emphasises the depth of our predicament.

Gardner was not on the list and his selection was really an indication of panic.

That leaves 3 babies who, at the start of the season, had next to no experience between them. As you say, they will take years.

These are not criticisms, just facts.

[GVGjr]

I still stand by what I said at the start of the season. 4 Rucks on the list was enough. Circumstances have now reduced that to 3, plus one of those is stuck at fullback. Perhaps we should have had one more as Sweet is also developing.

Overall we are ok for KPPs - Naughton, Schache, Young, added Gardner and Cordy plays that role. What my point was is they are all young and we need to be a bit patient as we know they will not mature till mid 20s. So recruitment and planning is not the issue.

We didn't have 4 ruckman though

There were huge doubts on Boyd being fit before the season started and we ignored that, that makes it 3. Sweet was an average SANFL ruckman in 2018 but with potential and was always going to be a mile off and that is why he was added to rookie list not the senior list so we are now down to 2 and maybe a bit if you think he can play but I don't think he is ready. English had issues with durability last year and Trengove is a jack of all trades player. Clearly we took a risk and gambled that English didn't need much support and that hasn't quite worked out.

To me it's not like we had 4 or even 3 genuine ruckman fighting for a couple of spots from round one.

It is how you want to see it though but the sum of numbers in your calculation is highly flawed in mine.

[Danjul]

We didn't have 4 ruckman though

There were huge doubts on Boyd being fit before the season started and we ignored that, that makes it 3. Sweet was an average SANFL ruckman in 2018 but with potential and was always going to be a mile off and that is why he was added to rookie list not the senior list so we are now down to 2 and maybe a bit if you think he can play but I don't think he is ready. English had issues with durability last year and Trengove is a jack of all trades player. Clearly we took a risk and gambled that English didn't need much support and that hasn't quite worked out.

To me it's not like we had 4 or even 3 genuine ruckman fighting for a couple of spots from round one.

It is how you want to see it though but the sum of numbers in your calculation is highly flawed in mine.

For an indication of how important the ruck is look at last weekend:

Grundy, Lycett, Martin, Gawn, best on ground. (There were only 6 games)
Marshall, 4th
Hickey, Bellchambers, in top ten.

AFL website.

[bornadog]

For an indication of how important the ruck is look at last weekend:

Grundy, Lycett, Martin, Gawn, best on ground. (There were only 6 games)
Marshall, 4th
Hickey, Bellchambers, in top ten.

AFL website.

All mature ruckman.

[Danjul]

All mature ruckman.

Us in 5 years.

What do I do in winter until then?

[bornadog]

Us in 5 years.

What do I do in winter until then?

Keep supporting the dogs and go to every game.

[GVGjr]

All mature ruckman.

It's interesting the way we both look at things, in one breath you say quality KP players don't grow on trees but in another you say we had 4 ruckman yet one of the had huge doubts on his fitness of one of them, which ultimately lead to a premature retirement, and the other was unproven state league player who is a fair way off the mark. My view is we had two ruckman with the potential for support from another then praying for a miraculous cure with the 4th. That's a gamble in my estimation especially when our main man needs support. Looking for support even for the short term would have been a sensible thing in my opinion

You've also added Cordy in your KP players list above but I'm sure you've also said he shouldn't be pitted against KP forwards. He might be down on form in the last couple of weeks but I think he's had a strong enough season as a KP defender.

Anyway, I'm never going to be able to put anything forward on the subject of list management or player development that goes against the clubs approach that you will agree with and I can accept that.

[Danjul]

You've also added Cordy in your KP players list above but I'm sure you've also said he shouldn't be pitted against KP forwards. He might be down on form in the last couple of weeks but I think he's had a strong enough season as a KP defender.

I see this as a popular refrain here, but I cannot understand it. He is enthusiastic and cast in a David and Goliath role but the truth is he has not been successful. Like much of the improvisation that’s replaced simple common sense this failure has been hidden behind the cult of personality pervading the club.

I have watched his performances closely in a desperate attempt to bond with the majority, but the evidence is overwhelming.

From the first game when he was selected as fullback on Franklin to last week at CHB on Cox he has been given impossible tasks. In my opinion his ability has been compromised and in just the last 6 matches he has given up about 25 goals. To give him a different role would be to admit failure, so following the lessons of history it has been decided to make him the stuff of legend and hope no body notices.

[bornadog]

It's interesting the way we both look at things, in one breath you say quality KP players don't grow on trees but in another you say we had 4 ruckman .

Ok, I will explain better. I should have said I count ruckman and KPP separately.

Agree the club took a gamble with Boyd.

You've also added Cordy in your KP players list above but I'm sure you've also said he shouldn't be pitted against KP forwards. He might be down on form in the last couple of weeks but I think he's had a strong enough season as a KP defender.

I said he plays that role, but I don't think that well.

Anyway, I'm never going to be able to put anything forward on the subject of list management or player development that goes against the clubs approach that you will agree with and I can accept that.

You have me wrong there. I am just realistic that ruckman and A grade KPPs are hard to get. We don't need a lumbering ruckman, otherwise you keep Cambell, and as for KPP's - no point in drafting one in 2018 as you would have added another baby to the allready list of young guys. To trade for a really good KPP, well maybe there just wasn't one we could get. We probably tried for Steven May, but he wasnt interested.

[jeemak]

Sydney are on the same amount of wins as us, and are enjoying the rebuilding narrative. They just traded out Dan Hannebury and there's talk of Papley wanting to return to Victoria mid-contract.

Hawthorn's coach is possibly on the move, and the captain has been rubbed out for pinching and stomping. Their list has serious questions marks over it and it's felt they traded out too much leadership too early.

Yes and no.

I agree with your general description but not your last sentence.

The club has had years to avoid the situation we are in. Was there really any need to find the team devoid of key components and having to wait a little longer for moderate success.

Everything was foreseeable. The club has kept ruckmen and key position players on the books, not played them, got rid of them and not replaced them with serviceable options who could shoulder some of the load while the new generation develops.

Develop they will. But the club has been using the same excuse, young players developing, for too long to cover too many sins.

So no, there should be no forgiving.

(Now we are getting the new excuse that Sydney is down the ladder with us because they are rebuilding too. So things are progressing normally. They enjoyed success for 10 years first.)

Actually no, not making excuses. Bumper suggested the malaise that is happening with us wouldn't happen with some clubs that are seen as the benchmark, and I was simply pointing out that they also have some issues.

But I'll bite anyway.

Sure Sydney have been successful in the last ten years, winning one flag and playing in another two grand finals. But we've won our last flag more recently than they have but it seems that their slide is seen as palatable and understandable even though they were within four goals of winning another flag at the time we won ours. They were the "best team" in the comp, clearly (don't get me started on how much we were underrated winning 15 games in 2016 with a banged up list most of the year), in 2016 but have fallen off the cliff just like we have. So my question is, why is their rebuild acceptable and ours isn't? Why are we failures and why do the rules have to be different for each of our clubs?

We invested in Adams and Collins and it's hurt us as much as Morris going down has. Young hasn't come on to the extent we'd like, but he's probably going to be OK. I get why people believe a contingency for T. Boyd should have been sought but there's only so many list spots to go around, and let's face it, he was our perfect second ruck/forward and they don't grow on trees and are not easily replaced.

The thing that gets my goat a little is we assume the professionals aren't as smart as we are. Sure, I get that questioning them is the right thing to do, but we ask why we can't find a Witts or whoever else, but without understanding what's actually on the table for the player, what we can afford as a club, and opportunities for said player within our club's pecking order how would we know? And when all of that is stacked up we just assume we've done badly and didn't try. It's actually insulting to those who work in the caper, and some folks should imagine how it would feel if the performance within their own jobs was so easily scrutinised or discarded.

Football discussion is definitely the best example of how the lay person doesn't understand how negotiations work, and how future planning can and can't affect short, medium and long term results. It's mostly based on hindsight, BT is smart and works his arse off to keep this forum ticking over but even he would admit that it's almost impossible to predict what should versus will happen over time, and what shouldn't have happened outside of the obvious.

Because we all love football we like to pretend that information asymmetry doesn't exist (and unfortunately the fat heads within the media make it out as if it doesn't), but it does - and if we were talking about banking we'd probably accept it. Simplify all you like.

[Danjul]

Actually no, not making excuses. Bumper suggested the malaise that is happening with us wouldn't happen with some clubs that are seen as the benchmark, and I was simply pointing out that they also have some issues.

But I'll bite anyway.

Sure Sydney have been successful in the last ten years, winning one flag and playing in another two grand finals. But we've won our last flag more recently than they have but it seems that their slide is seen as palatable and understandable even though they were within four goals of winning another flag at the time we won ours. They were the "best team" in the comp, clearly (don't get me started on how much we were underrated winning 15 games in 2016 with a banged up list most of the year), in 2016 but have fallen off the cliff just like we have.

So my question is, why is their rebuild acceptable and ours isn't? Why are we failures and why do the rules have to be different for each of our clubs?

Rebuilding is not only acceptable but necessary because of the way the system works.

What people struggle with is why Sydney gets 10 years of success out of a build and the Dogs get ......