Just because English was BOG doesn't mean...

[1eyedog]

Re: Just because English was BOG doesn't mean...

Suckling came to club when Murphy was still playing.

We were not an old list in 2015 and 2016 either so adding those replacement players kept the status quo and didn’t increase our age profile.

But we knew Bob was at the end yeah.

[GVGjr]

Re: Just because English was BOG doesn't mean...

Murphy -Suckling (HB)
Boyd - Crozier (BP)
Picken - (as a forward Lloyd?)
Morris - Keath (Key back)

We've brought some guys in.

And you can add Duryea and Bruce to the list but then ask yourself why is the playing list selected on match day getting so much younger creating the 'inexperience' excuse that gets trotted out all too frequently?

If we look at it a bit deeper did Keath actually replace Morris or was his trade more about the fact that we let Hamling, Adams and Roughead walk in previous years while Roberts and Morris retired and we hadn't developed others to replace them?
When we brought in Crozier we initially tried him as a forward before he eventually settled in as a defender

[Bornadog]

Re: Just because English was BOG doesn't mean...

Suckling came to club when Murphy was still playing.

We were not an old list in 2015 and 2016 either so adding those replacement players kept the status quo and didn’t increase our age profile.

The thing is, there is no conspiracy to be the youngest team. Essendon were younger than us last night. We have been one of the youngest due to unforeseen circumstances, mainly brought about by injuries and retirements. In 2017 second half and a lot of 2018 we had an average of 10 players on the injury list, and most of those were the more experienced players.

If you look at the list now, we have a good profile in the 50 to 100 and 100 to 150 bracket which makes us well balanced. An elder statesmen would be good in the 200 plus bracket, but that will come.

We also have a very good blend of young players which is great - so not sure the issues?

[Missing Dog]

Re: Just because English was BOG doesn't mean...

It doesn't mean we have solved out KPF problem. Two of Bruce, Naughton and Schache are going to have to kick 6 between them if we are to go top 4 and deep.

[Grantysghost]

Re: Just because English was BOG doesn't mean...

The thing is, there is no conspiracy to be the youngest team. Essendon were younger than us last night. We have been one of the youngest due to unforeseen circumstances, mainly brought about by injuries and retirements. In 2017 second half and a lot of 2018 we had an average of 10 players on the injury list, and most of those were the more experienced players.

If you look at the list now, we have a good profile in the 50 to 100 and 100 to 150 bracket which makes us well balanced. An elder statesmen would be good in the 200 plus bracket, but that will come.

We also have a very good blend of young players which is great - so not sure the issues?

I think when we get beaten it appears we don’t have the balance right as we do seem to go meekly into the night at times, the GWS final maybe sparked some of this thought. Maybe it doesn’t matter at all. Possibly the age profiles of teams are skewed by old teams like the Cats ? Be interesting to see an analysis of age profile v success.

[Bornadog]

Re: Just because English was BOG doesn't mean...

I think when we get beaten it appears we don’t have the balance right as we do seem to go meekly into the night at times, the GWS final maybe sparked some of this thought. Maybe it doesn’t matter at all. Possibly the age profiles of teams are skewed by old teams like the Cats ? Be interesting to see an analysis of age profile v success.

I remember Terry Wallace a few years ago doing an analysis on team profiles and what was the ideal age mix. I will try and find it.

One thing with Bevo, he doesn't care what your age is, he backs his players in to do the job as long as they have form. By form, I mean they have followed the coaches instructions and played the way they should have. That may not be necessarily getting 20 disposals, but may mean negating a player or playing a defensive role rather than an attacking one. These are things we are not privy to.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Re: Just because English was BOG doesn't mean...

...that our ruck "problems" are solved.

Nor does the fact that he got smashed by Grundy mean that they are insurmountable.

Just because Weightman did a couple of flashy things it doesn't mean we have 'found' a small forward. Nor does it mean we haven't. Etc. Etc.

We still have a list of largely 'unproven' players. Watching two of 'Team Bailey' (Smith and Williams) this year, you would have to think they could almost be added to the group of 'proven' AFL players in our side. I think Liber is close to 're-claiming' that status as well post injury. The likes of Bruce, English, Dale...well, one (or two) swallows don't make a summer.

Watching the game last night I am continually struck by how LITTLE experience so many of our players have in dealing with challenging games of footy...we just aren't in close games these days. We are either 'on' or 'not on' and the results seem to be one way or another. If we can get 'just a few more' players up to that consistent level of performance where they have 'experienced enough' such that whether they are in form or not, feeling 'confident' or not, having a 'good day' or not, their level of performance/impact on the game only varies by 10-15% then we have the makings of a really strong, balanced team.

My love for Crozier is well known - but he is just a good player. He probably isn't an AA-calibre player...but he has literally seen it all and seemingly knows what to do to either minimise the damage/maximise the benefit in any given situation. We just need to get him a few more mates. Things are building - they really are. Games like the Carlton one are still going to happen - hell, think of Richmond in the 2018 prelim - but hopefully games like the Giants prelim or Collingwood R#1 are starting to move into the rear view mirror.

You've started some awesome threads this season Mike. Nice stuff.

[Remi Moses]

Re: Just because English was BOG doesn't mean...

Why do our supporters run with “we let Hamling go”
He stated for the record he wanted to go back to WA and yet we still run with it !
Adams chose to leave ! Hamling had a sick parent if I recall

[Remi Moses]

Re: Just because English was BOG doesn't mean...

You've started some awesome threads this season Mike. Nice stuff.

Agree with that
We are a bit all duck or no dinner currently
We need an ugly win

[Bornadog]

Re: Just because English was BOG doesn't mean...

Why do our supporters run with “we let Hamling go”
He stated for the record he wanted to go back to WA and yet we still run with it !
Adams chose to leave ! Hamling had a sick parent if I recall

Adams continually injured, didn't get along with other players so it was a no brainer.

[jeemak]

Re: Just because English was BOG doesn't mean...

The thing is, there is no conspiracy to be the youngest team. Essendon were younger than us last night. We have been one of the youngest due to unforeseen circumstances, mainly brought about by injuries and retirements. In 2017 second half and a lot of 2018 we had an average of 10 players on the injury list, and most of those were the more experienced players.

If you look at the list now, we have a good profile in the 50 to 100 and 100 to 150 bracket which makes us well balanced. An elder statesmen would be good in the 200 plus bracket, but that will come.

We also have a very good blend of young players which is great - so not sure the issues?

People expect a lot, they want things to be perfect all the time.

Teams will make some bad decisions with list management, they'll make some good ones. Injuries will impact performance, so will variable levels of player development.

Just because haven't added more experience, doesn't mean we haven't tried (because it's been reported/ stated we have). Recruiting players who are good and don't cost too much isn't easy. If you can't afford to or won't pay what players want you'll need a bloody compelling story to get them to your club and even after winning a flag we didn't really have one, for whatever reason.

So if you can't trade in the players you want what do you do? Trade in players you don't, or develop your own and see who can make it (which is what we seem to be doing)?

Looking at it in a block of five years I don't think our list management has been fantastic, but I don't think it's been bad and our results in some ways reflect this with three out of five seasons under Bevo as finalists and one of those as premiers. If we make the top four to six again this year which should be what we're aspiring to as a minimum, then you'd say it's been better than worse.

[hujsh]

Re: Just because English was BOG doesn't mean...

I like the suggestion but it's doubtful it will happen, Young's best chance might be to fill a spot in the forward line until Naughton comes back

I don't understand this. Young pushed Trengove out of the key defensive post last year and was quite good. Now he's not up to playing on the second tall forward and can only find a spot for himself as a forward?

Personally I see a lot of validity in Comrade's suggestion and the option of having either Cordy or Young back or forward seems right up Bevo's alley with his flexibility mantra.

I suppose you're right we're unlikely to see it though (unless that unlikeliness makes it more likely because the MC loves to pull rabbits out of the selection hat)

[soupman]

Re: Just because English was BOG doesn't mean...

It's the stop/start nature of our player development that is hard to understand for me and it's perhaps the reason why we can keep saying we have a young and inexperienced list.

We put development games into the likes of Will Hayes last year before he was really ready and this year he had been unsighted.
We put games into Lachie Young as a defender last season and before last night I don't think he had even made the emergency list except for his late call up last week.
We appear to have lost some faith in Lewis Young after setting him up last year for a bigger role this year and the development of Greene and Lynch has been stymied after some promising signs in previous years...I get that injuries has played a part in it as well
On top of that we lost faith in Rhyley West after one poor showing and who knows where we are with Roarke Smith

It's like we start something but never quite stay the course, losing faith but never really addressing things at the end of the season.
There are a lot of players on our list who have had senior football experience but someone has then hit the pause button.

Great post, particularly this bit which is in line with my big query about the way we use our list.

I am sick of hearing about how we are such a young inexperienced side, because yes it is of our own making.

It is through a few things:
1. Our young guys are very good. Bont, Macrae, Dunkley, Daniel, Hunter have been the core of our side basically since they debuted and are all very young to be the senior group. Consider most sides core would probably involve 6 guys that are virtually all older than anyone in our group, eg. Collingwood is probably Pendlebury, Sidebottom, Howe, De Goey, Grundy, Treloar and maybe two of them fit in our age group.
2. We tend to be reluctant to embrace players in their 3rd-5th years, unless they have really proven themselves as quality AFL players. We have so many guys who fit in this category atm and for the last few years. These guys are almost always stuck on the fringes, often bafflingly so.
3. If the older guys aren't killing it, we don't like them. Trengove is a good example, Dickson as well. We would much rather pick a young guy who is probably going to give us a mediocre performance but might show glimpses of a really good player, than just picking a solid good older bloke. This is a little inconsistent, as guys like Suckling kind of disprove it, but he is just about the only one, I mean Trengove last year is the perfect example. A guy who is good without being great, has been a solid part of the side for ages, dropped at a crucial stage for a guy who is a gamble.
4. We have this obsession with playing guys surprisingly early, and to be fair generally get good output from them. This is also a big thing because of the above two points, we need to replace those guys we aren't playing with guys that don't fit that category. Those are the younguns. Beveridge loves the debut card, and loves giving responsiblity to players who shouldn't be expected to live up to it. He clearly really believes in young guys ability to outperform expectations, but as a result he is almost desperate to keep proving everyone wrong again and again.

So the thing that really frustrates me is that we are so desperate to pump games into the really young kids, and then go cold on them. Every draft we have picked a random young guy to give more than expected games to, then fail to see progress the next year. And often when they do get their next chance it is in a completely different role to the one they looked promising in, and rarely are they better for it. It must be baffling to be an 18 year old draftee to the Bulldogs, feel like you are killing it, the coaches really believe in you, play you super early with promising results, contract extension by round 10, you miss one or two games with an injury and due to load management but play most games, supporters annoint you as a future star, everything is great. Come back do a good preseason, get told that you'll be pushing for a spot at half back, WOOF has you in most peoples best 22s, then you spend the vast majority of the year struggling to get a game, finally get picked but are played in a position you've never played before, get immediately dropped, spend a few more weeks working on your weaknesses, then get a call up because a senior player is injured/suspended, play one or two games with ok form, get dropped as soon as that guy comes back into the side, then see out the year in the reserves.

In 2015 it was Webb, plays heaps of games, then is struggling for a spot as an inside mid for eternity. In 2016 it was Williams, who was promising and in and out of the side for a while, but never really felt in favour from 2018 till now. In 2017 it was Lipinski and Young. Both given games and performed promisingly, then by 2019 they both were finding it impossible to be selected, before late season form saw them perform well. Now they both feel out of favour again. 2018 sort of had one in Gowers, who was infuriatingly goodbad, and since then has been shithouse. I am happy to exclude that one from this argument though. 2019 saw Lachie Young and Will Hayes given lots of games, the former didn't look like getting a game till this week, the latter seems as much in the selection frame as Tory Dickson. Now in 2020 we have Butler, who I like the idea of, but is going to get 10ish games this year then in all probability be struggling to get a look in for the next 3 years.

To be clear I am fine with us giving games to young guys, and wouldn't want to not play guys like Weightman who have high ceilings because they were at the back of the queue. But outside of that we too regularly play young guys ahead of 2-5 year players for no reason.

Some recent Examples:
Lachie Young given games ahead of Bailey Williams as that medium defender last year.
Butler given games ahead of Lachie Young as that medium defender this year.
Lachie Young given gametime as a hard running wingman ahead of Hayes/Smith this year. (More a weird role thing, we shoehorn games into him there when surely he is the perfect next in line for the Crozier/Wood/Williams tallish rebounding defender role, while the guys we have been developing in that role, with both featuring there in pre-season, are no where to be seen).
Ryan Gardner given games ahead of Lewis Young this year.
Lewis Young given gametime as a forward ahead of Schache in round 1, again a weird role thing.

So to bring it back to the statement "We have an exceptionally young side not through bad luck but through probably accidental design".

We have this tendency to not give our 2nd-5th year players the best chance to succeed. We frequently make it much harder for them to earn selection after their first year doing so, when they seem to just have to turn up with a positive attitude to get minimum 2 games, often placing them behind newer players on the priority list, sometimes regardless of the role required.

This means we always have about four 18-19 year olds with sub 10 games to their names, while we have a bunch of guys stuck on 20-30 games in their early 20s who can't seem to make progress.

This, coupled with the core of our playing group being stupidly young, is why we have such a young and inexperienced side every single week, and is also why we never seem to make progress on either of those metrics.

[jeemak]

Re: Just because English was BOG doesn't mean...

Appreciate the effort Soup but I think you're over simplifying it. Or the opposite, I'm not sure!

We're playing Williams and Dale now, we've pumped games into Cordy and he's a regular fixture. Both McLean and Lipinski are regular fixtures after getting games when maybe they shouldn't have.

Daniel and Dunkely have had games consistently and are now elite players.

We put games into Naughton and English. We're persisting with Richards and Smith picks himself.

Our core of experience is Bont, Jacko, Hunter, Wallis, JJ, Suckling, Duryea, Libba, Jong, Lloyd, Wood, Trengove, Dickson and Crozier.

So that's twelve of fourteen senior players who probably pick themselves outside of injury and form issues. Four who get games based on sheer talent, because let's face it, they're extremely talented. Another two who have been relied upon and are elite, and another five that have been given consistent opportunities.

We're up to 25 players who are either senior core who have been given ample opportunity or pick themselves due to sublime talent, experience and output. And we've also recruited Bruce and Keath to bolster the list and they're first team selections without bothering to think about it.

Sure, Schache and Young could be playing tall for us. Others could be getting more or more consistent opportunities but they need to deserve those opportunities. Can you say hand on heart they do? I can't, because it's too hard to tell without seeing them at the lower level, especially now given there isn't one.

So given there's 25-27 players on the list who have claims to be playing regularly, and actually do when there's injury and form issues, how many more should be regular players? It's a finite season, you can only pick 22 players.

As BAD has suggested, a lot of our guys over the years have gotten games due to our at times horrendous injury list. Playing players and then shelving them is part and parcel of a club that faces these issues. If they're good enough their time will come. If they're not, it won't and they'll move on. We don't owe them games, and I think it's great that we actually give them a chance in the first place when a spot opens up.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Just because English was BOG doesn't mean...

If English can replicate that level of efficiency/effectiveness around the contest moving forward, it goes a long way to solving our midfield problem. If we solve that problem, I’m not too fussed about the ruck problem.

Fast becoming our most important player is the big chilli bush.