Any surprises here from Andrejs Everitt?

[GVGjr]

One was done in the last training night before the finals by a player hoping to be the last player selected.

The other happened on holidays. Big difference.

It actually says more about the selection processes the club has in place and how they apply them.

They were always looking to find a reason not to play Everitt and a few air golf shots is actually a very lame excuse. They would have been far better off just saying his form didn't warrant the selection.

So many people accept the esky surfing as just a holiday prank. The player concerned missed finals through a serious injury and yet the act on holidays had a fair bit of potential to inflame that injury further. On top of that it didn't show good judgment and probably highlighted poor leadership potential and yet it didn't cancel him out of the captaincy race.

[AndrewP6]

They were always looking to find a reason not to play Everitt and a few air golf shots is

Pardon my ignorance, but what's the story with the air golf?

[azabob]

Pardon my ignorance, but what's the story with the air golf?

I am assuming during training in prelim final week he practised his golf swing, kind of like playing air guitar??

[LostDoggy]

It actually says more about the selection processes the club has in place and how they apply them.

They were always looking to find a reason not to play Everitt and a few air golf shots is actually a very lame excuse. They would have been far better off just saying his form didn't warrant the selection.

So many people accept the esky surfing as just a holiday prank. The player concerned missed finals through a serious injury and yet the act on holidays had a fair bit of potential to inflame that injury further. On top of that it didn't show good judgment and probably highlighted poor leadership potential and yet it didn't cancel him out of the captaincy race.

That's exactly what I said at the time, Gary. Lack of intensity has been used as an excuse for the under-development/delisting/trading of our recruits once too often for me (I count at least 6 players in the last 5 years) -- like you said, these character traits were known prior to drafting, so our recruitment policy should at least take some blame. We seem to have gone in a different direction the last couple of drafts though, so it seems we're at least learning from our mistakes.

Your point about leadership is also a good one: the lack of off-field influence that our leadership group (nevermind the coach) has over the attitudes of junior players also says something uncomplimentary about our culture.

[Go_Dogs]

Think his best spot is still going to be as a 3rd tall who can lead up. Good user, and can kick a long goal.

[bornadog]

That's exactly what I said at the time, Gary. Lack of intensity has been used as an excuse for the under-development/delisting/trading of our recruits once too often for me (I count at least 6 players in the last 5 years) -- like you said, these character traits were known prior to drafting, so our recruitment policy should at least take some blame. We seem to have gone in a different direction the last couple of drafts though, so it seems we're at least learning from our mistakes.

Your point about leadership is also a good one: the lack of off-field influence that our leadership group (nevermind the coach) has over the attitudes of junior players also says something uncomplimentary about our culture.

To make it at AFL level these days you have to keep up the intensity for almost 100% of the time on game day. You have to show the passion and the pain at training. The club can coach, train, provide the best facilities, but if the player hasn't got it in them there isnot much you can do.

The comment on 6 players, well it could be ten or more, I am not sure if you are trying to blame the club for this. You don't know these things when you recruit at age 17/18. The years from 18 to 20 are the years where most teenagers either drop off from elite sport or they have the passion in them to go on with it. The drop out rate is unbelievable and a lot of them don't want to put the hard work in to make it to the top. This is not a fault of our club, its just part of life.

Go down to the club and have a look at the facilities, the number of coaches, the fitness training, the recovery facilities, the physios etc etc and you will see these kids are given every chance. The difference between making it and not making it is a fine line and its mostly in the head.

Everitt was given every chance to prove himself and for example, was told there was one more spot available for the 2010 preliminary final, but guess what he didn't want it bad enough. The club developed him for 3 to 4 years, the club knew he had talent, but it gets back to the individual and sometimes you can only go so far. maybe a change of scenery, maybe something will trigger it and he will get the message that at the elite level you can't just rely on talent alone. There are thousands out there with similar talent, but only a few make it every year.

But please you can't blame the club for players lacking intensity and the passion to play.

[AndrewP6]

To make it at AFL level these days you have to keep up the intensity for almost 100% of the time on game day. You have to show the passion and the pain at training. The club can coach, train, provide the best facilities, but if the player hasn't got it in them there isnot much you can do.

The comment on 6 players, well it could be ten or more, I am not sure if you are trying to blame the club for this. You don't know these things when you recruit at age 17/18. The years from 18 to 20 are the years where most teenagers either drop off from elite sport or they have the passion in them to go on with it. The drop out rate is unbelievable and a lot of them don't want to put the hard work in to make it to the top. This is not a fault of our club, its just part of life.

Go down to the club and have a look at the facilities, the number of coaches, the fitness training, the recovery facilities, the physios etc etc and you will see these kids are given every chance. The difference between making it and not making it is a fine line and its mostly in the head.

Everitt was given every chance to prove himself and for example, was told there was one more spot available for the 2010 preliminary final, but guess what he didn't want it bad enough. The club developed him for 3 to 4 years, the club knew he had talent, but it gets back to the individual and sometimes you can only go so far. maybe a change of scenery, maybe something will trigger it and he will get the message that at the elite level you can't just rely on talent alone. There are thousands out there with similar talent, but only a few make it every year.

But please you can't blame the club for players lacking intensity and the passion to play.

Great post.

[GVGjr]

To make it at AFL level these days you have to keep up the intensity for almost 100% of the time on game day. You have to show the passion and the pain at training. The club can coach, train, provide the best facilities, but if the player hasn't got it in them there isnot much you can do.

All very true but if the character flaws are there when a player is drafted and you can't turn it around is it still just the players fault or a combination of less than committed effort from the player and a club who thought that they could lift his intensity and then didn't?

Both the player and the club missed this opportunity.

But please you can't blame the club for players lacking intensity and the passion to play.

I think you can when the club had an offer 12 months earlier for the player but sang all the right tunes in the media that he was a required player and even re-signed him.
Obviously they backed themselves to turn it around but 12 months later finally bit the bullet.
Do they not get a fail mark for that?

We can point the finger at Everitt for not making the most of his opportunity, and I believe that to be correct, but the club also failed to make the right calls along the way and in the end a player with a lot of potential failed to reach his ability at our club.
He won't be the last to miss a great opportunity at our club but I'm not convinced that Everitt is the sole problem here.

[Flamethrower]

The main regret about Dre is that the next 2 players selected in the 2006 draft were James Frawley and Jack Riewoldt. Hindsight is always 20/20 but you would love either of those players on our list.

[bornadog]

All very true but if the character flaws are there when a player is drafted and you can't turn it around is it still just the players fault or a combination of less than committed effort from the player and a club who thought that they could lift his intensity and then didn't?

Both the player and the club missed this opportunity..

I don't know about the character flaws, but maybe the club thought they could help him turn it around. He was only 17 when drafted and as I said when young teenagers start to reach adulthood they can go either way. Obviosuly Everitt didn't. The club gave him his opportunities and he didn't take them

I think you can when the club had an offer 12 months earlier for the player but sang all the right tunes in the media that he was a required player and even re-signed him.
Obviously they backed themselves to turn it around but 12 months later finally bit the bullet.
Do they not get a fail mark for that? .

The club was happy to trade him but didn't get the right offer, you can't just give him away as they knew he had talent. So no, not a fail at all.

We can point the finger at Everitt for not making the most of his opportunity, and I believe that to be correct, but the club also failed to make the right calls along the way and in the end a player with a lot of potential failed to reach his ability at our club.
He won't be the last to miss a great opportunity at our club but I'm not convinced that Everitt is the sole problem here.

Don't understand what you mean by the right calls?

[Before I Die]

We can point the finger at Everitt for not making the most of his opportunity, and I believe that to be correct, but the club also failed to make the right calls along the way and in the end a player with a lot of potential failed to reach his ability at our club.

Sorry GVGjr, but I thonk you are (unintentionally) twisting circumstances to support your argument. Every player picked in any draft has potential and any player picked reasonably early has a lot of potential. But not all players, even early draft picks achieve that potential. Either you are making the claim that in each case this was partly the fault of the club they were recruited to, in which case all clubs are equally guilty, or you are claiming that Everitt's case is different to all the others. I think you are bringing your own prejudices to your decision making. Everitt played 36 games with us and a few of them were very good. He will probably end up playing in excess of 100 games over his entire career with quite a few more very good ones. This won't indicate any failing by the Dogs hierachy. He was on the cusp of selection with us each week, at another club it is reasonable to expect he could get a regular game. If he becomes an elite player then perhaps your argument has merit, though even then the question of whether any fault lay with the club would be debatable.

[GVGjr]

The club was happy to trade him but didn't get the right offer, you can't just give him away as they knew he had talent. So no, not a fail at all

Don't understand what you mean by the right calls?

The summary is

They drafted a laconic player who stayed laconic so if they thought they could change him they didn't.
The could have traded him 12 months earlier but again obviously backed themselves to change things.
And on top of that they didn't get the agreed deal for him when they did trade him.

The easy option is to just blame the player but I believe the club didn't get things right either.

[GVGjr]

Sorry GVGjr, but I thonk you are (unintentionally) twisting circumstances to support your argument. Every player picked in any draft has potential and any player picked reasonably early has a lot of potential. But not all players, even early draft picks achieve that potential. Either you are making the claim that in each case this was partly the fault of the club they were recruited to, in which case all clubs are equally guilty, or you are claiming that Everitt's case is different to all the others. I think you are bringing your own prejudices to your decision making. Everitt played 36 games with us and a few of them were very good. He will probably end up playing in excess of 100 games over his entire career with quite a few more very good ones. This won't indicate any failing by the Dogs hierachy. He was on the cusp of selection with us each week, at another club it is reasonable to expect he could get a regular game. If he becomes an elite player then perhaps your argument has merit, though even then the question of whether any fault lay with the club would be debatable.

I think your missing my point.
Bornadog's first response was to call him lazy and to use a reference of him taking golf swings during the finals campaign to support this view.
My response has been to highlight that I don't believe that practicing a few swings is that serious and certainly nothing when compared to an injured star player surfing an esky lid.
One player was getting ridiculed and cast as lazy and the other player was still right in the mix for the captaincy of the club.

The Everitt of 2010/11 is almost the same laconic type player he was when we drafted him and we knocked back a deal for him 12 months before eventually biting the bullet with him.
If the club had a plan to change his ethic they didn't.

[chef]

I think you can when the club had an offer 12 months earlier for the player but sang all the right tunes in the media that he was a required player and even re-signed him.
Obviously they backed themselves to turn it around but 12 months later finally bit the bullet.
Do they not get a fail mark for that?

Depends on how Vez and T.Hill go in their careers at the Dogs IMO as that's what we end up getting for Everitt.

[chef]

The summary is

They drafted a laconic player who stayed laconic so if they thought they could change him they didn't.
The could have traded him 12 months earlier but again obviously backed themselves to change things.
And on top of that they didn't get the agreed deal for him when they did trade him.

The easy option is to just blame the player but I believe the club didn't get things right either.

I was under the opinion that they didn't trade him last as they couldn't get his worth and didn't want to give him away cheaply(as he was still contracted), similar to what happen with Hill last year.