Bankers and Anchors - Round 9

[F'scary]

Re: Bankers and Anchors - Round 9

If we were good enough, we'd win them.

There's a bit of semantics here. Yeah, on the one hand, we didn't win so we weren't good enough. BUT we were in winning positions in the last quarter in three lost games this year. On the basis of this, I'm getting off forgiving close losses on the basis that we are a rebuilding side whom no-one expects to win these games and taking the attitude that we dropped 4 points that should have been ours. I'm not for a second questioning your level of support, don't get me wrong on that. I just reckon we're much closer to being back where we were a couple of years ago than we realise. Things like form and the relative ranking of sides change quickly in footy and I reckon we're way ahead of where most thought we'd be right now. So I'm modifying my opinion of our relative standing, I think we are similar to the other sides who are generally held to be chasing a finals spot and therefore getting dark on these sorts of losses.

[Mantis]

Re: Bankers and Anchors - Round 9

"When is this club going to learn to win important matches" - Having been to the North game and seen the joy of the supporters, I just felt this was quite an negative take on our season so far.
I'm not offended, and the North Game is a case in point, winning a very important match. We'll start jagging more of these wins soon enough. One has to be realistic about where we are at.

I think he meant when will we start beating good teams, or at least ones which are perceived that way.

It was frustrating that we folded when within striking distance, like we have many times before.

[westdog54]

Re: Bankers and Anchors - Round 9

I think he meant when will we start beating good teams, or at least ones which are perceived that way.

It was frustrating that we folded when within striking distance, like we have many times before.

If anything it was more dissapointing than the Collingwood game, given how capable the team has shown themselves to be over the last month or so. The last goal probably was more an indication of how many we'd thrown forward, with Geelong catching us on the counter, but the reality is we could have, and realistically should have, finished the game stronger than we did.

Having said that, I'm reviewing my previous thoughts as to whether we will make finals in the next couple of years, I had us in the bottom half for at least the next 2 to 3 years.

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Bankers and Anchors - Round 9

I think he meant when will we start beating good teams, or at least ones which are perceived that way.

It was frustrating that we folded when within striking distance, like we have many times before.

Point taken. I wonder if there is a mental equivalent of kicking beyond the goal. My Dad used to teach me, when kicking for goal, always try to pretend you're hitting a target in the stands. Maybe we have to play from the start as though we are 2 goals behind!

Nobody I knew thought we would beat North and after they beat Geelong, many perceived them as being a good team. I still think they are, but maybe they got a bit complacent.

Having said that, I'm reviewing my previous thoughts as to whether we will make finals in the next couple of years, I had us in the bottom half for at least the next 2 to 3 years.

Good to read this. Critical for us that we do not bottom out. We can't afford it, from a membership point of view.

[comrade]

Re: Bankers and Anchors - Round 9

Having said that, I'm reviewing my previous thoughts as to whether we will make finals in the next couple of years, I had us in the bottom half for at least the next 2 to 3 years.

We're still very reliant on Lake, Boyd, Cross and Murphy (and Gia to a lesser extent). Too reliant for my liking.

It's going to take some very good drafting and development over the next 3 years to ensure we can climb up the ladder when those players retire. I know the same thing was said when Grant, West, Darcy, Smith etc left us, but I'm not sure the next group runs as deep this time around.

Looking at it positively, we do have the basis for a tough, classy midfield which is a good foundation for success.

[Bornadog]

Re: Bankers and Anchors - Round 9

We're still very reliant on Lake, Boyd, Cross and Murphy (and Gia to a lesser extent). Too reliant for my liking..

These guys are 10 years older than Libba, Wallis, Dahl, Smith, and 7 years older than Higgins. No wonder we are still relying on them.

[Mantis]

Re: Bankers and Anchors - Round 9

We're still very reliant on Lake, Boyd, Cross and Murphy (and Gia to a lesser extent). Too reliant for my liking.

It's going to take some very good drafting and development over the next 3 years to ensure we can climb up the ladder when those players retire. I know the same thing was said when Grant, West, Darcy, Smith etc left us, but I'm not sure the next group runs as deep this time around.

Looking at it positively, we do have the basis for a tough, classy midfield which is a good foundation for success.

One would think that we will remain in a similar spot on the ladder as we are now over the next 2 or 3 years. As the likes of Jones, Wallis, Libba, Dahlhaus improve we will see the 'older' guys drop off.

As suggested when we add new players to the younger guys already there we should start to see the type of improvement that will hopefully lead us back up the ladder.

[comrade]

Re: Bankers and Anchors - Round 9

These guys are 10 years older than Libba, Wallis, Dahl, Smith, and 7 years older than Higgins. No wonder we are still relying on them.

Exactly but can we really expect 21 and 22 year olds to pick up the slack and push us up the ladder? The lack of depth in the next age bracket could really set us back. We didn't have that problem when Grant, Darcy, Smith and West retired because we had Boyd, Lake, Murphy, Cross, Hargrave, Morris etc etc to fill the void.

We really need the likes of Higgins, Williams, Markovic, DJ, Sherman and Dickson to hold the fort while our young guns develop.

And we need to draft very well.

[LongWait]

Re: Bankers and Anchors - Round 9

One would think that we will remain in a similar spot on the ladder as we are now over the next 2 or 3 years.

This, to me, is failure and way too pessimistic. I'm very happy with the quite dramatic change we've witnessed in our game style in just 9 games and think that another 12 months will see us frightening the beejeezus out of everyone. We'll play finals next year and challenge for top four in the 2014 or 2015 or both in my view.

[Bornadog]

Re: Bankers and Anchors - Round 9

This, to me, is failure and way too pessimistic. I'm very happy with the quite dramatic change we've witnessed in our game style in just 9 games and think that another 12 months will see us frightening the beejeezus out of everyone. We'll play finals next year and challenge for top four in the 2014 or 2015 or both in my view.

I don't think its pessimistic, I think its realistic, as Comrade points out we don't have that middle tier of players currently to support the Libbas, Wallis' etc. In 2014, we are going to be left with a young team full of 22 year olds supported by Minson, Higgins, Sherman and Dickson.

Our biggest issue this year is the gap. If you look at the make up of the team each week we are playing as follows:

0 - 50 games = 10
51 to 99 = 2
100 to 149 = 3
150 plus = 7

Its going to take years to balance this out.

Geelong is in a worse situation than us, with the last bracket hitting 8 players.

Collingwood has one of the best balanced teams 9,5,4,4.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Bankers and Anchors - Round 9

Great discussion.

It is also why I think we should trade heavily the next couple of years and really go hard at some top-shelf talent in the middle age bracket. We should have more than enough in the kitty anyway with so many vets and kids.

It's basically what we would have been paying the Wards, Hills, Skippers, Rays and Stacks of this world if they actually stayed or turned out to be any good.

Get Boak AND Cloke, I say.

[1eyedog]

Re: Bankers and Anchors - Round 9

If we paid out on Boak I hope we would get some return. For Port's highest paid player he has been pretty ordinary this season. A lack of support and class around him doesn't help. Geelong and Essendon love him, but is this a product of his Falcon's background.

Is he really that good because I have seen a lot of inconsistency. He's 24 with 100 games under his belt and barely saw it in their comeback win against North two weeks ago. Had his best game for the club against minnows GC last week. Would we be paying overs to get/retain him?