List-building has Dogs ready: Eade

[GVGjr]

But if that was the case, and managing a team better, therefor having more depth in your club, there will only still be 22 positions avaliable in any case, therefor some of those players that can't fit into the best 22, may very well be very good players who would slot into any other side, such as Callan, he would walk straight into the Melbourne or Richmind teams, yet isn't quite good enough to crack it into the stronger teams as that best 22 player.

Another example is Sam Power, rated highly as a junior, taken pick 10 in the draft, was given alot of opportunities from Rocket & Dean Laidley at the Roo's where he was played more as a tagger, he also has an outstanding attutude.

Who should take the wrap for Sam, now that he is no longer in the system?

If he just isn't good enough, there is not much anyone can do, and in his case, it wasn't from a lack of opportunities or hard work on & off the track.

I suppose the point I'm making is that I hear Wayde Skipper being called a list clogger last season when in fact we hadn't drafted ruckman to the primary list for a while and he wasn't blocking anyone.
He did however, add a lot of depth to to the ruck division but from a number of fans perspective he had been on the list too long and shouldn't have been there. Was it the club or players fault that he was still on our list?

Regarding Sam Power, sometimes you win or lose with an early pick and Power just was a step behind where he needed to be to carve out a longer career. Perhaps we could have used him better but we will never know.

[soupman]

I interpret a list clogger to be a player who doesn't have the current or potential ability to be a best 22 player anymore.

Every player that is recruited to a club will be deemed as having the ability to be in that sides best 22 at some point, whether that is immediate (eg. Barry Hall), in a year (eg. First round draft pick), or in 4 years (eg. Ayce Cordy).

At some point though, it will become obvious that the prospect of a player becoming a best 22 player in the immediate or near future is slim to none. This isn't to say that the player isn't good enough to be serviceable at AFL level, and isn't to say that they are a bad player, it simply means that they are taking a spot on your list that could be invested in someone who still has that prospect ahead of them.

Now a player like Cameron Wight is a interesting example of this. When he was recruited to the club he was deemed as a very raw prospect who would take a while to develop physically and as a player. I'm unsure what position they saw him filling, but it would have been a spot in our 22.

Then, in 2006 he broke through and played a few games, culminating in two finals. I remember him looking like a good prospect at that stage. Physically he was tall, quick and strong enough to play on those tall leading forwards. Game wise, he didn't really get the footy a lot, didn't have any outstanding attributes such as foot skills or marking, and frequently turned the ball over through a combination of skills and decision making.

However, at that point he was given leeway as he had half the attributes, and we often see players improve in these areas as they adjust to the different level of footy.

2007 was the same sort of thing, but over the course of the 2007 and 2008 seasons it soon became apparant that those deficiencies were not diminishing. He was still prone to bad decision making, and still didn't have anything that set him apart from other players except for the fact he was tall. It was halfway through 2008 though that it became clear that we felt he had become a list clogger. He simply hadn't progressed as hoped since that 2006 finals series, and without improvement coming as a side effect of playing in the seniors he wasn't good enough to justify stopping someone else from playing.

He thus became a list clogger, as he was no longer deemed to be good enough to be in our best 22, and not able to improve enough to realistically put him in a best 22 for later years.

As for Tim Callan, I feel he is most likely to be a list clogger. He has shown on ocassion (the Geelong prelim in '08) that he can be a very good player. However, his strength (his bravery) isn't always of great benefit, and the other thing he is good at (stopping good players) often gets undone by one of his two major deficiencies (goes to ground to often and easily, leaving his opponent almost uncontested to dispose of the footy as he gets back up). The other deficiency is his disposal by foot/decision making, which is often shaky.

You could compare him to Dylan Addison and say they are pretty similiar, except: Addison is more rounded athletically, and with the extra height he is able to cover more positions. Addison is also more suited to the midfield, where his strengths such as fighting for the ball and providing defensive pressure are more useful. I also think Addisons weaknesses aren't as pronounced. His kicking isn't bad, its his decisions which re the problem. He also doesn't tend to influence matches enough, but that could be because he is still developing at AFL level. I think at the moment Addison could still develop into a best 22 player, but another year or so on the fringes might indicate he isn't progressing as hoped.

As for Callan getting games at other clubs, he probably would, but only those clubs where he is a better option than another player. I still feel he will ultimately be a list clogger with them too though, as I feel that the clubs he is good enough to get a game at are those sitting about 7th to 16th. This means they are planning to improve to become a top 4 side, and Callan playing is merely holding back the development of their own Cameron Wights (circa 2006), who could still become that player we hoped he'd be.

[mjp]

Eade said we don't carry back up players.

I'm kind of with MW here SS. If we don't carry backups, why was our entire recruiting strategy (after round 2) build on this basis? And why was Mulligan upgraded?

Regardless, I don't really care and have been advocating a strategy (forever) that would see guys we aren't going to play be delisted at all costs and biting deeper in the draft/rookie draft to find replacements. Reasons for delisting would be:
- They aren't good enough, and/or;
- The coach doesn't have any faith in. O'Keefe is in this category I think?

So, I guess I don't mind the tenor of the article, but I just hate the terminology - it just doesn't sit with my 'pro-player' bias.

[Before I Die]

Well why did we recruit a few then? Markovic, Rose, Moles.

I don't think you can call rookies "back ups". They are not even available to play unless there is a long term injury. They are calculated gambles with a relatively low cost and a two year limit on their tenure unless promoted or re rookied.

Markovic is different. I suspect the coaches believe injury hasn't allowed him to reach his true potential so far and he may well become best 22. Also I am not sure that the "play the kids" philosophy goes as far as putting a tall, skinny kid on a Jonathon Brown or Nick Riewoldt. To date this job has fallen to Morris when Williams has been unavailable and next in line would be Shaggy or Tiller if fit. I must admit, however, that I have been surprised Markovic didn't get a run in the NAB cup games.

[mjp]

I don't think you can call rookies "list cloggers". They are calculated gambles with a relatively low cost and a two year limit on their tenure unless promoted or re rookied.

He said they were backups - in response to a comment that we dont recruit backups.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Well why did we recruit a few then? Markovic, Rose, Moles.

They're not list cloggers until they prove they're not up to it.

Markovic, Rose and Moles are simply draftees with potential like any other, there just a bit older than most. Dale Morris and Brian Lake were older when they were drafted as well but they're hardly list cloggers.

[Before I Die]

He said they were backups - in response to a comment that we dont recruit backups.

My apologies, I have corrected the terminology in my post. I also share your dislike for the term "list clogger". I find it derogatory, given that it most often is attached to hard working players who fall just short of the "eker" classification. I also don't like it because it is a Garry Lyonism, nuff said.

[ledge]

My thoughts on what Eade is trying to do is bring in players who will cover older players as they retire for example Cordy when Hudson retires?
Getting the age roundabout right so the younger one is ready to go this means both young and old players will be on the list at the same time hopefully passing on experience.

Harbrow has probably shone in a position Callan and Addison were expected to fill, taken his opportunity you might say, most would have thought Harbrow an opportunist forward early on.

The game as changed as far as HBF or BP is concerned they used to be taggers of a sort but now one is used as a tagger and the other a run off player.
Morris is the tagger and Harbrow runs off, Hargraeve tags , Gilbee runs off.

I would not call Callan or Addison list cloggers as they both are up to league standard its just we have better players in their position at this moment.

Skipper wasnt a list clogger but a player who was starved of opportunities due to the players we had in his position being better.

List cloggers dont exist as far as I m concerned.
Back up players do.

[mighty_west]

They're not list cloggers until they prove they're not up to it.

Markovic, Rose and Moles are simply draftees with potential like any other, there just a bit older than most. Dale Morris and Brian Lake were older when they were drafted as well but they're hardly list cloggers.

Yep, never mentioned that were list cloggers, but depth players recruited in, i do agree with you though that a "list clogger" is a player that can no longer improve without getting a regular senior game, so whats the point of keeping him on the list, especially knowing each team has to lose at least 3 players each season.

Markovic as a key defender, with the likes of Boumann & Mulligan already in the sheds developing away, and like many, couldn't understand why he didn't get a crack at it in the NAB.

Moles has shown so far that he could very well hold back some of the other developing mids, and thats great for the team, and for himself, but does that hold back one or two of those already developing?

Don't get me wrong, i remember Rocket saying we wearn't drafting in depth players, going back a few years when he said that, i just wonder if his thougts have changed depending on where the team is at.

We were still clearly in a development mode back then, now we are a genuine Premiership chance where we'll most likely not see alot of the younger players get a game, plus the news rules with recruting mature aged rookies, and needing a few depth players as back up, where's in development mode, they would only hold up the kids.

[LostDoggy]

Don't forget that the lack of quality in the younger draft candidates maybe persuaded Eade and co to go for a few more older players rather than take a few risks.