List Management - Hawthorn

[jeemak]

Re: List Management - Hawthorn

That Hawthorn trading is very hit and miss as was their recruiting.They got lucky in 08 as the cats fluffed their lines.One thing that stands out is they recruited Franklin and that's the difference. Sydney have been outstanding and haven't bottomed out and have addressed their needs( mumford , Richards, Kennedy and have fixed a glaring weakness in outside run in drafting Jetta and Rohan. The question remains though are Sydney going to remain thereabouts or are they good enough for a flag tilt?

There's a little bit of merit in this post. The Cats did fluff their lines, though the Hawks were good enough to be in the right place at the right time to benefit from it in 2008.

I really think you need to maintain a balance between taking speculatives or underdeveloped types in the rookie draft, established depth players for back up throughout the season in the pre-season draft, drafting on the basis of most talented available versus the needs of the list in three to four years in the main draft, and trading for cream or immediate need.

One thing I definitely believe in though, is looking to find replacements for consistent senior players while those players are at their peak, between the ages of 25-27/28.

A balance between all of the preseason drafts, rookie drafts, national drafts and trade periods is the safest means by which you can achieve a balanced lists for mine, irrespective of whether you have access to very high picks in the national draft. There's no perfect method on a yearly basis, and clubs need to be flexible in adapting to which players are available in each. What is imperative though, is clubs not waiting too long to find replacements for players who have been consistently performing at senior level. Once a player hits 25-26 you need to start considering how you're going to replace him.

I think Rocco mentioned earlier, a consistent approach across multiple seasons is needed.

[LostDoggy]

Re: List Management - Hawthorn

Lantern, yet you did?

Haha sorry.

[Mantis]

Re: List Management - Hawthorn

In the last five years we were desperate for forwards/key forwards, so we went for ageing stars such as Aker, Welsh, Bazza but these were short term and I think short sighted.

We really need to trade for some players in the 23 to 26 year old bracket as this is currently our biggest issue and will be more of a concern when our 6 or 7, 30 year olds start to retire.

How many teams trade out decent 23-26 year old (key) forwards? Not many.. Should we have chased Jack Anthony?

In the last 5 years we have also drafted in Grant, Jones, Panos, Roughead & Cordy so I guess it was hoped that when the older guys had made way the young guys would take up the slack, but at present they are still a fair way off.

[mjp]

Re: List Management - Hawthorn

Just catching up on this...everyone knows Suban plays for Fremantle and not WC right??

[jeemak]

Re: List Management - Hawthorn

Just catching up on this...everyone knows Suban plays for Fremantle and not WC right??

I had my own irrellevant rantings to post mate, so I decided to let this one slip on by.......

[FrediKanoute]

Re: List Management - Hawthorn

How many teams trade out decent 23-26 year old (key) forwards? Not many.. Should we have chased Jack Anthony?

In the last 5 years we have also drafted in Grant, Jones, Panos, Roughead & Cordy so I guess it was hoped that when the older guys had made way the young guys would take up the slack, but at present they are still a fair way off.

I think you draft in the following manner:

1) Best Available

End of story. If its a key position guy great. If its a mid great. At the end of the day if you take highly skilled users of the football then it doesn't matter whether you have Jonathan Brown or Kermit the Frog up forward the ball will get to them enugh times for them to put a score on the board. Our problem in drafting Grant, Jones, Panos, Roughhead and Cordy has been that they weren't best available and all had deficiencies in their game which have had to be coached out of them. Our fixation with a forward being the answer to our prayers blinded us to their deficiencies.

Why didn't we take Pods? We had good enough mids to feed him? Why did we try to turn Minson into a forward? The guys you listed were never going to be able to cover the gap we had, and wont until 2013-2015 at best (if they ever do), because their skills were deficient in certain areas and we have had to coach out their deficiencies in order to make them consistent contributors.

[jeemak]

Re: List Management - Hawthorn

I think you draft in the following manner:

1) Best Available

End of story. If its a key position guy great. If its a mid great. At the end of the day if you take highly skilled users of the football then it doesn't matter whether you have Jonathan Brown or Kermit the Frog up forward the ball will get to them enugh times for them to put a score on the board. Our problem in drafting Grant, Jones, Panos, Roughhead and Cordy has been that they weren't best available and all had deficiencies in their game which have had to be coached out of them. Our fixation with a forward being the answer to our prayers blinded us to their deficiencies.

Why didn't we take Pods? We had good enough mids to feed him? Why did we try to turn Minson into a forward? The guys you listed were never going to be able to cover the gap we had, and wont until 2013-2015 at best (if they ever do), because their skills were deficient in certain areas and we have had to coach out their deficiencies in order to make them consistent contributors.

Not sure about other posters on this forum, though I think we've hit gold with Jones and Cordy. They are both going to be excellent footballers, playing key position forward. Each of them is under 22 years of age, and each is showing genuine talent. Give them a year or two, trust me.

Grant is one of the most uniquely talented players on our list. He's not going to be a power forward, though I think his goal in Darwin, and his six goals against Essendon in 2010 show that if we have someone strong to be the focal point other than him he has the ability to dominate games.

I'm glad we didn't take Pods. We'd have found an excuse not to win it anyway (2008-2010) even if we had him, our list needed developing then and we're on the right path to doing that now.

[LostDoggy]

Re: List Management - Hawthorn

Just catching up on this...everyone knows Suban plays for Fremantle and not WC right??

Far out, I can't believe I said that haha!

[mjp]

Re: List Management - Hawthorn

I really think you need to maintain a balance between taking speculatives or underdeveloped types in the rookie draft, established depth players for back up throughout the season in the pre-season draft, drafting on the basis of most talented available versus the needs of the list in three to four years in the main draft, and trading for cream or immediate need.

And now we have free agency as well...

I disagree with your point on taking 'speculatives and underdeveloped types' in the rookie draft. I think this is exactly where we get in trouble...

Think about our successful rookie selections:
- Morris, Picken, Boyd...and on it goes. What characteristics did they have?

1/.Considered over-achievers. Challenged in one way or another 'footy wise' but still manage to get the job done.
2/.Playing successful/effective SENIOR footy (admittedly, Boyd playing 2's) and body shape showing the effects of maturity + disciplined training effort.

I don't mind the idea of taking a developing ruckman/kpp as a rookie...but make it a 21/22 yo who is competing successfully at state leage level.

To me, you want your rookies to be low cost replacements who can slot into the senior side as a direct replacement for a player for whom you don't have a replacement on the list. Austin was a really smart rookie selection. Markovic would have been a really smart rookie selection (but I still say a less than inspired draft pick).

Rookies are guys who - if they do it - will do it on work-rate and effort. They are on low money and really wont / shouldn't be needed unless an injury hits a key senior player.

I will post some stuff later on best available vs needs selections because I don't think it is ever that clear-cut.

[jeemak]

Re: List Management - Hawthorn

And now we have free agency as well...

I disagree with your point on taking 'speculatives and underdeveloped types' in the rookie draft. I think this is exactly where we get in trouble...

Think about our successful rookie selections:
- Morris, Picken, Boyd...and on it goes. What characteristics did they have?

1/.Considered over-achievers. Challenged in one way or another 'footy wise' but still manage to get the job done.
2/.Playing successful/effective SENIOR footy (admittedly, Boyd playing 2's) and body shape showing the effects of maturity + disciplined training effort.

I don't mind the idea of taking a developing ruckman/kpp as a rookie...but make it a 21/22 yo who is competing successfully at state leage level.

To me, you want your rookies to be low cost replacements who can slot into the senior side as a direct replacement for a player for whom you don't have a replacement on the list. Austin was a really smart rookie selection. Markovic would have been a really smart rookie selection (but I still say a less than inspired draft pick).

Rookies are guys who - if they do it - will do it on work-rate and effort. They are on low money and really wont / shouldn't be needed unless an injury hits a key senior player.

I will post some stuff later on best available vs needs selections because I don't think it is ever that clear-cut.

Appreciate what you're saying, though, my use of the word speculative wasn't geared towards body shape or player type. I used it more along the lines of choosing players that in most cases have either had their cards marked by other clubs for various reasons, or have not been determined to have shown the immediate attributes to warrant a position on an AFL list.

Agree that Austin was an exceptional example of how the Rookie List can be utilised, as a result of our second and third string KPD's being unavailable in lieu of the versatile Morris going down with injury late last year. He's playing solid football for the club, and the ultimate result of his performances this year will be increased selection pressure in an area in which we were perceived to be light on.

Due to the flexibility and size of the Rookie List, I believe each club is afforded an excellent opportunity to develop a range of players with different capabilities, and should never select a certain 'type' of player. The Rookie List should be diverse in its capacity.

I look forward to reading your thoughts on best available versus needs. As you say, it is never clear cut, and a flexible approach based on a consistent philosophy is required, depending on how the list will look over the course of years to come.