Development of Players - Questions

[GVGjr]

Re: Development of Players - Questions

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 ......

In my opinion the essence of the issue is that we didn't handle success well and I think the footy department, players and coaches etc, were all guilty of taking their eye off the ball. Once a level of complacency gets into the work place it's a bitch of a thing to recover from and getting the hunger back into the playing list is the key challenge going forward. I'm as frustrated as anyone with the level of our on field performances but we just have to accept now that we are reshaping things hopefully for a rebound in 2020.

[Bulldog4life]

Re: Development of Players - Questions

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.

Great post Jee.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Development of Players - Questions

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.

Not sure anyone thinks they know better than the pros. But let's be real 99 percent of coaches screw up often enough to end up sacked.

Our list weaknesses have been so apparent that Terry Wallace the list manager nails our weaknesses every year.

It isn't rocket science. Yeah you need some luck but I reckon any absorbed footy fan could build a decent list.

[Bornadog]

Re: Development of Players - Questions

Not sure anyone thinks they know better than the pros. But let's be real 99 percent of coaches scre up often enough to end up sacked.

Our list weaknesses have been so apparent that Terry Wallace the list manager nails out weaknesses every year.

Wallet the wannabe

[ledge]

Re: Development of Players - Questions

Sydney are accepted as a rebuild as they have been up a long time, we were expected to start our ten year success in 2016.
Sydney’s team were aging ours was young, that’s why they accept them rebuilding and not us, I tend to agree with what the media say in that department.
We all expected us to be a powerhouse and Sydney to drop.

[jeemak]

Re: Development of Players - Questions

Not sure anyone thinks they know better than the pros. But let's be real 99 percent of coaches screw up often enough to end up sacked.

Our list weaknesses have been so apparent that Terry Wallace the list manager nails our weaknesses every year.

It isn't rocket science. Yeah you need some luck but I reckon any absorbed footy fan could build a decent list.

But that's kind of the point, either the professionals we employ at the club have been asleep at the wheel (wholly or at times) or it's harder than it looks to build, develop and keep a completely balanced list together. Or it's a combination of the two which is entirely possible.

I believe it's either one of the last two scenarios, and just because weaknesses are apparent to all and sundry it doesn't mean fixing them is a walk in the park. Perhaps when asked the likes of Wallace and anyone else in the media will talk of throwing money around to secure a player here or a player there, but that's just unaccountable cheap seat commentary from the galleries at the end of the day. Identifying players you want and need is the easy bit, actually securing them is the hard bit and none of the pundits have to worry about that.

[jeemak]

Re: Development of Players - Questions

Sydney are accepted as a rebuild as they have been up a long time, we were expected to start our ten year success in 2016.
Sydney’s team were aging ours was young, that’s why they accept them rebuilding and not us, I tend to agree with what the media say in that department.
We all expected us to be a powerhouse and Sydney to drop.

We had some ageing players that have retired and some injuries to players who were difficult to replace. Sure you can get coverage on the list for the likes of a C. Smith, Picken, T. Boyd or Morris, but actually getting replacement players to play like them isn't easy because they're really really good at what they do when they are doing it well.

Things turn really quickly in this competition, perhaps we were all a bit deluded after we won the flag about how good we could have been long term. Just as the professionals can get things wrong when projecting future performances of a list, so can fans and media alike.

[Bornadog]

Re: Development of Players - Questions

We had some ageing players that have retired and some injuries to players who were difficult to replace. Sure you can get coverage on the list for the likes of a C. Smith, Picken, T. Boyd or Morris, but actually getting replacement players to play like them isn't easy because they're really really good at what they do when they are doing it well.

Things turn really quickly in this competition, perhaps we were all a bit deluded after we won the flag about how good we could have been long term. Just as the professionals can get things wrong when projecting future performances of a list, so can fans and media alike.

Especially Fans

[Danjul]

Re: Development of Players - Questions

Especially Fans

one thing some commenters here overlook is the fact that .....

........fans who have been to hundreds of Dogs games probably have some idea of what they are talking about when they describe what they are seeing.

For example, people here predicted that English would struggle against Goldstein. He did. We lost.

They also predicted the same against Grundy (twice). Yes, we lost (twice).

Why aren’t the Dogs a certainty to make the finals this year?

Because we might not be getting the best results from the players we have.

[Bornadog]

Re: Development of Players - Questions

Because we might not be getting the best results from the players we have.

Or - the players aren't up to it at this stage of their development.

[hujsh]

Re: Development of Players - Questions

one thing some commenters here overlook is the fact that .....

........fans who have been to hundreds of Dogs games probably have some idea of what they are talking about when they describe what they are seeing.

For example, people here predicted that English would struggle against Goldstein. He did. We lost.

They also predicted the same against Grundy (twice). Yes, we lost (twice).

Why aren’t the Dogs a certainty to make the finals this year?

Because we might not be getting the best results from the players we have.

You could also say the same against Lycett and we won. Really while Trengove is our main key back there's just no other option for the ruck. We seem determined to stick with Naughton as a forward as much as possible and Young clearly doesn't get rated as the main main down back. Is it a failure of list management? I believe so. Is there much we can do about it at this point? Seems not.

[Danjul]

Re: Development of Players - Questions

You could also say the same against Lycett and we won. Really while Trengove is our main key back there's just no other option for the ruck. We seem determined to stick with Naughton as a forward as much as possible and Young clearly doesn't get rated as the main main down back. Is it a failure of list management? I believe so. Is there much we can do about it at this point? Seems not.

The Bulldog midfielders are among the best in the competition.

But they are used to salvage games instead of destroying the opposition.

Where would we expect to be if someone like Grundy was feeding them every game ? Now we are not in that fortunate position yet , but that Doesn’t mean we cannot do better now.

My reason for mentioning predictions is that despite it being a foreseeable risk there never seems to be a plan B for when English is being overwhelmed. We just go with whatever is happening and wear the consequences.

An important question is *How do we minimise the damage and maximise English’s contribution with the current list ?*

That cannot get a satisfactory answer if the damage is not acknowledged.