Will we have a debutant this season?

[MRB37]

Yeah. Stating the obvious, but Nicks has approached this season differently based on the idea that this was the season to play finals. After the reasonable start last year where we sat in the 8 for a good portion of the year they began actively focusing on making finals, and then after the genuinely unlucky finish plus all the narrow losses they very publicly put this year down as the finals push. The only improvements to the starting team that have been discussed or pursued were more midfield opportunities for some of the young players they already had (largely Rankine) and some effort to upgrade the backline given the loss of Doedee and Murray (attempting to trade Petty, looking to draft a KPD).

I don't think there was much of a plan if that initial approach did not work out, and the expectation was that as the list continued to mature it was just going to come together. Last year's team plus more mature bodies equals a continued rise up the ladder.

I think it's still salvageable in light of the youth of the team (3rd youngest in the AFL last week behind North and GC), but they obviously need to re-calibrate expectations in light of those facts - its a young side with improvement still needed, not a finished product, which does mean making some hard calls. Unfortunately I suspect the club is internally thinking they've had a really tough draw and some poor fortune and things are turning around. There's obviously some truth to that, but the issues run deeper.

The ins this week are individually fine but there are certainly some more outs to pursue, and I think in previous seasons either Ryan or Dowling would have come in this week for sure. The really hard call the selectors have to make is Laird for me, and that feels a long way from happening.

You can argue we're playing youth, but how much of it is looking like good youth? Basically we've got

Borlase is depth at best
McHenry is a bust
Hamill has a shotgun kick and will get himself KO'd again soon because he can't stop attacking the football with his head down
Cook can't get involved to save his life
Sholl has zero contested side to his game and doesn't have a standout attribute to make up for it
Pedlar looks like a shell of the player he was showing he might become
Chayce Jones is a constant tease on if he can be consistent or not.
Gollant hasn't gotten near it when he's played
Berry has some contested skills, but has fumbled more plays than he's done cleanly

That basically leaves us with Nank, Soligo, Worrell, Michalanney and Rachele as the youth we have that are showing they'll definitely be long term players for us.

 

[NSolis]

You can argue we're playing youth, but how much of it is looking like good youth? Basically we've got

Borlase is depth at best
McHenry is a bust
Hamill has a shotgun kick and will get himself KO'd again soon because he can't stop attacking the football with his head down
Cook can't get involved to save his life
Sholl has zero contested side to his game and doesn't have a standout attribute to make up for it
Pedlar looks like a shell of the player he was showing he might become
Chayce Jones is a constant tease on if he can be consistent or not.
Gollant hasn't gotten near it when he's played
Berry has some contested skills, but has fumbled more plays than he's done cleanly

That basically leaves us with Nank, Soligo, Worrell, Michalanney and Rachele as the youth we have that are showing they'll definitely be long term players for us.

Yeah, that's basically my point. It's still a young group but being young alone isn't enough to assume improvement is inevitable, especially because some of our best players remain in the older group. That said I'm not writing off Pedlar or Berry at this point, and I think Jones will end up a reasonable AFL player, just not someone who should have been a top 10 pick. Rankine, Murray and Thilthorpe are also younger than some of those you've named and are all going to be good players too.

But we absolutely need to think of the list as a continued project, not a group ready to contend.

 

[CryptoCrow]

We've played dogshit football for 5/6 rounds for a team that was gunning for finals. How many unforced changes have we made where those players omitted haven't been back in within a couple of weeks?

View attachment 1971205

This is damning imo. Recycling of the same players within a short time frame. Shows reactiveness and lack of direction.

Add to that our three (glaringly) worst players (Murphy, McHenry and Smith) either cannot be dropped or have only gone out with injury.

Horrible stuff

When you see it in black and white like this I feel sick

 

[Doctor B]

In 2022 Geelong played 4 debutants, Crows played 3.
Geelong won the Grand Final, Crows finished 14th.

2023 Geelong had 5, Crows had 3.

This year Geelong have played 2 to our none.

 

[Samcro24]

You can argue we're playing youth, but how much of it is looking like good youth? Basically we've got

Borlase is depth at best
McHenry is a bust
Hamill has a shotgun kick and will get himself KO'd again soon because he can't stop attacking the football with his head down
Cook can't get involved to save his life
Sholl has zero contested side to his game and doesn't have a standout attribute to make up for it
Pedlar looks like a shell of the player he was showing he might become
Chayce Jones is a constant tease on if he can be consistent or not.
Gollant hasn't gotten near it when he's played
Berry has some contested skills, but has fumbled more plays than he's done cleanly

That basically leaves us with Nank, Soligo, Worrell, Michalanney and Rachele as the youth we have that are showing they'll definitely be long term players for us.

“Rebuild”

 

[BACCS]

In 2022 Geelong played 4 debutants, Crows played 3.
Geelong won the Grand Final, Crows finished 14th.

2023 Geelong had 5, Crows had 3.

This year Geelong have played 2 to our none.

That’s the best run club in the league vs one of the worst

 

[Golumless]

Yeah, inevitably we will. Probably looking at 2, maybe 3, this year depending on how injuries shake up.

Seems like our initial plans with Curtin got scuppered with Keane announcing himself as a rather serious CHB though, but he'll inevitably get a game - probably this week. Eventually, there will be a point Dowling gets gametime if he stays healthy seeing he's been on the emergency list in the last few weeks, and I'd back Ryan to get 1-2 games in the back end of the year.

That said, we're overdue to start culling a lot of that 2019--2021 draft crop who haven't found a way to hold a best 22 spot down.

 

[SugarShane]

In 2022 Geelong played 4 debutants, Crows played 3.
Geelong won the Grand Final, Crows finished 14th.

2023 Geelong had 5, Crows had 3.

This year Geelong have played 2 to our none.

Why would we look outward to what other teams are doing when we're so convinced what we're doing is the right way to do things? We as a club do not look outward and we definitely do not listen to outside noise.

Unless that "noise" is non-existent chatter around our coach's contract. Then we must act immediately so that it's not a distraction.

 

[George Kramer]

2 max when we have no mathematical chance of making finals

 

[Golumless]

Why would we look outward to what other teams are doing when we're so convinced what we're doing is the right way to do things? We as a club do not look outward and we definitely do not listen to outside noise.

Unless that "noise" is non-existent chatter around our coach's contract. Then we must act immediately so that it's not a distraction.

There are many scenarios where looking outwards is just a pointless exercise. This is one of them, as ultimately, debuts are just responding to where your list is at. After all, when it comes to 0 gamers, there are about 15 clubs who sit at 7-9 undebuted players - Adelaide are currently at 7. The four who are lower are North, Gold Coast, Richmond and Western Bulldogs.

What your seeing from Adelaide is mostly a result of the 2019--2021 draft periods. We turn over 60% of the list with a lot of debuts in 2020--2021 - we lead the league with 18 players in those years. However, that pace is unsustainable as kids need time to build their bodies up and time to sort out whether they are long-term options or stuck in purgatory as 'maybe good enough, but probably depth'. The big problem here is most kids are drafted for a reason and there is something there that will say that they're potentially good enough in the first year or two. Now, this aggression has a place, you want to refresh your list quickly and Adelaide does have a pretty intruging core from that era moving into the mid-to-late 2020s.

However, there is a cost to that aggression. After all, those drafts hauls are now in their 3rd to 5th season and it's flushed Adelaide with depth seeing there are a lot of guys who have something, are capable of big games (and most I'm about to list have big performances in the AFL to their name) but haven't found a way to put it all together to be a locked in best 22 member. Guys you want to give 4-5 seasons too to work s**t out, in case they're a late bloomer or they've ran into a rough patch. Think players like Berry, Hamill, Himmelberg, Schoenberg, Sholl, Parnell, Gollant, Cook, even McHenry. Problem with depth is it strangles your mid-tier prospects from later drafts, after all, depth will be used when required. Now, the elite prospects will find a way through rather easily - Curtin will debut in the next few weeks seeing the hype around him - but when it comes to the Dowlings, Ryan, Edwards of the world who aren't seen with as bright lights, they're going to get lost in the shuffle for longer than they should. After all, a guy like Dowling needs to spend longer to convince the selection committee they'll get more out of him then say, a Berry, compared to a few years ago where it's a O'Connor against someone who can barely tie their shoelaces.

We are now due a cull and refresh of our prospect pool just to give it some breathing room. After all, lots of tried depth is a bad thing.

 

[rabidcrow]

It’s like Nicks debuted a heap of players in 2020 and 2021 because he was forced too with our list turnover, but now wants ‘consistency’ to get some ‘stability’ in the best 22. If you don’t have ‘stability’ then you can’t execute his ‘process’, so if you are still learning this ‘process’ then you’ll only get games due to injury.

This kind of thinking is fine at the backend of a season as you’re prepping for finals, but ideally you’ve been able to rotate through at least 30 guys in the earlier rounds so anyone can just come in and fill a role. There’s no need for stability to execute the process in earlier rounds, especially when the team is performing so poorly; this should be when you’re experimenting with which players can execute that process the best come the backend of the season and finals.

Not surprising there are minimal changes for the first 3-4 weeks of a season. They spend 5 months working out how the season will play out - not going to react to one or two bad performances. By now it should be much easier to make changes based on form (which we are still not really doing )

On the first comment - consistency and playing the same guys together. This the key to winning flags. You need a core group of experienced players to play a 100 games together. 14-16 players to have played over 150 games. That’s the model of successful AFL teams. When you start a deep rebuild you have to run with the same core for a few years - and some don’t make it, which is why rebuilds expand out and take so long


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[adelaidecrows]

There are many scenarios where looking outwards is just a pointless exercise. This is one of them, as ultimately, debuts are just responding to where your list is at. After all, when it comes to 0 gamers, there are about 15 clubs who sit at 7-9 undebuted players - Adelaide are currently at 7. The four who are lower are North, Gold Coast, Richmond and Western Bulldogs.

What your seeing from Adelaide is mostly a result of the 2019--2021 draft periods. We turn over 60% of the list with a lot of debuts in 2020--2021 - we lead the league with 18 players in those years. However, that pace is unsustainable as kids need time to build their bodies up and time to sort out whether they are long-term options or stuck in purgatory as 'maybe good enough, but probably depth'. The big problem here is most kids are drafted for a reason and there is something there that will say that they're potentially good enough in the first year or two. Now, this aggression has a place, you want to refresh your list quickly and Adelaide does have a pretty intruging core from that era moving into the mid-to-late 2020s.

However, there is a cost to that aggression. After all, those drafts hauls are now in their 3rd to 5th season and it's flushed Adelaide with depth seeing there are a lot of guys who have something, are capable of big games (and most I'm about to list have big performances in the AFL to their name) but haven't found a way to put it all together to be a locked in best 22 member. Guys you want to give 4-5 seasons too to work s**t out, in case they're a late bloomer or they've ran into a rough patch. Think players like Berry, Hamill, Himmelberg, Schoenberg, Sholl, Parnell, Gollant, Cook, even McHenry. Problem with depth is it strangles your mid-tier prospects from later drafts, after all, depth will be used when required. Now, the elite prospects will find a way through rather easily - Curtin will debut in the next few weeks seeing the hype around him - but when it comes to the Dowlings, Ryan, Edwards of the world who aren't seen with as bright lights, they're going to get lost in the shuffle for longer than they should. After all, a guy like Dowling needs to spend longer to convince the selection committee they'll get more out of him then say, a Berry, compared to a few years ago where it's a O'Connor against someone who can barely tie their shoelaces.

We are now due a cull and refresh of our prospect pool just to give it some breathing room. After all, lots of tried depth is a bad thing.

Well written.

Industry standard is just 30% of all draftees making it to 50 games, we are on pace of crushing that standard with 70% of the 2018 to 2022 draftees achieving the 50 game milestone.

Talent identification is a thing and its important to recognise a players ceiling and whether its at long term AFL standard. pumping 100 games into Murphy and McHenry is not going to magically turn them into elite Dustin Martin style footballers. This is where Nicks and the selection committee are failing, and I mean if failure was an olympic sport, they are Michael Phelpsing it.

I get they were pushing for finals, blind freddy could see that and the fans expected it. But you can't tell me, Curtin playing would cost us games, or even Dowling and now Taylor that he is back from injury. The failure to drive the list to find its talent potential was always going to hold us back from long term success.

What does cost you games is playing players with a limited ceiling who are out of form all because they are a mature body. Murphy, Sholl, McHenry in the same side would have easily combined to lose us games. Not sure how replacing one of them with a Curtin or Dowling would make it worse when there is a fresh unknown upside.

 

[Golumless]

Talent identification is a thing and its important to recognise a players ceiling and whether its at long term AFL standard. pumping 100 games into Murphy and McHenry is not going to magically turn them into elite Dustin Martin style footballers. This is where Nicks and the selection committee are failing, and I mean if failure was an olympic sport, they are Michael Phelpsing it.

Whilst talent identification and ceilings are important things to consider, that's really the list managers job to worry about and to make sure the kids who you are banking on being core members have as easy a pathway as possible to your best 22. An example of a decision like this would be to delist an out of contract but best 22 member in James Rowe, seeing it lowers the pressure on Rachele to hold a best 22 spot with Rankine coming in - someone the club clearly wants to invest in. Effectively, you want to force the hand of the guys who job depend on the now to select who you want within reason.

The other side of the coin is selection committee job starts and end at winning next week. Now there are some long term considerations here but mostly they are about what identity are you trying to build and are if your elite players are used correctly. This is where lads like Murphy - and McHenry to a lesser degree - come in and why it's not a failure for them to get significant game time. It's not that we're looking to turn them into elite players - we know they won't and have known that since early in the piece - it's that they're best 22 to do a role for whatever the structure we've built demands and if they're holding that spot, they're performing to expectations. Equally, it's why players like that can have a rather low shelf life as a best 22 member at times and can return multiple times, after all, your cores needs are fluid. It also doesn't matter that they do get replaced even after 80-120 games invested, it's a response to your team growing, and you can't predict your needs until you're there.

When it comes to building a contender and future proofing a side, it comes down to the core of guys a team is building and if they're getting games. The rest simply doesn't matter, and it's up to them to find a niche. After all, no one is building a best 22 capable to win a premiership when you're in the mid-table. You're building a group of 12-14 players who you want as the skeleton for any assault up the table. Now, some of your role players will survive as well, and be apart of that assault, because some will just mesh with the core that's pushing upwards. That said, with a good coach, the role players sort themselves out. That said, there is still a fair bit of list and best 22 rejuvenation to come.

Reality is Nicks and the selection committee have so far passed just about every test thrown their way so far to this point. Some with flying colours, others not without much fanfare. This is likely the first failure, though it's not set in stone just yet. At this point, I'm not particularly sure if we've lost our identity by overcorrecting or if the league simply caught up.

I get they were pushing for finals, blind freddy could see that and the fans expected it. But you can't tell me, Curtin playing would cost us games, or even Dowling and now Taylor that he is back from injury. The failure to drive the list to find its talent potential was always going to hold us back from long term success.

Of course we're pushing for finals. However, that doesn't change how selection works. It just influences when the executioner comes to collect their dues - though of course, that's balanced by how much a club loves their guy. The thing is there is little difference to how we're selecting now to how, lets say North Melbourne or Geelong are selecting thier sides in terms of method. Changes will be minimalised when teams are playing well to just the necessary ones, experimentation will happen when they go on extended runs of poor form - especially if coaches are on the hotseat - the next man up will be selected in response to injury/form drops, the kids who look like they'll star will find it easy to get into the best 22 etc.

List management is a different beast and there are significant differences between us and the aforementioned sides.

What does cost you games is playing players with a limited ceiling who are out of form all because they are a mature body. Murphy, Sholl, McHenry in the same side would have easily combined to lose us games. Not sure how replacing one of them with a Curtin or Dowling would make it worse when there is a fresh unknown upside.

Nah, that's too specualtive and ignores what a role player actually is. The key question isn't upside, it's how they mesh with your core and what your core needs. You can play a combination of Murphy, McHenry and Sholl without any issues providing it meshes with your top dogs - heck, we won that Dawson after the siren showndown with a team that had all three in a few years back to show an extreme example that it can work in a tough games as an underdog. Like everything in football, it comes back to your elite talents and how your structure around them is working.

The other thing is no one is an unknown come the end of January. They might be to the average fan or the industry at large, but they are not to the club because by that point, they've seen them in match sims and in general training and clubs tend to have a really good feel for where kids are at on a list. Not many kids debut early year one and look horribly out of depth for long. Not many debut year 4 and have long careers at an AFL level. Not many debut year 2-3 and it looks like it's a year too late without being blocked by a good player.

In all honesty, the only kid in our SANFL who we can safely say has any bearing on our long term success, right now, is Curtin and that's because we spent pick 6 on him. Playing a Dowling or Taylor won't because I can guarantee you that every premiership team (and failure) has delayed or hasn't played somoene who looks a likely type in every single year in the lead up to winning a flag and in their flag year. The mid-tiers sort themselves out with time.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Whilst talent identification and ceilings are important things to consider, that's really the list managers job to worry about and to make sure the kids who you are banking on being core members have as easy a pathway as possible to your best 22.

I 100% agree here if you are looking at overall list management but its wholly based around the coaches feedback.

but its also a key coaching criteria to seek to improve the side as much as possible when ever an opportunity presents itself. So if you outright ignore form and the same players keep producing the same mediocre substandard results that are leading to losses, then it is 100% a coaches duty to seek a different approach. A different approach would be rewarding a debutant or exploring the depths of your list of long ignored players. Granted Nicks did this with Hamill and Himmelberg. I give him a lot of credit for that and soon we will see Schoenberg and Murphy back in.

Nah, that's too specualtive and ignores what a role player actually is. The key question isn't upside, it's how they mesh with your core and what your core needs. You can play a combination of Murphy, McHenry and Sholl without any issues providing it meshes with your top dogs - heck, we won that Dawson after the siren showndown with a team that had all three in a few years back to show an extreme example that it can work in a tough games as an underdog. Like everything in football, it comes back to your elite talents and how your structure around them is working.

Its not ignoring role players at all. But being a role player doesn't change competency. A good squad does need role players. No question. But are they truly performing their role better than another player can perform it. McHenry shape role is statistically not backed up, Sholl is an unremarkable wingman who fails when the side needs him, Murphy statistically is very poor and im not sure it can be argued effectively no one can do it better.

Isn't doing the same and thinking it will produce better results with more games and it not working, over trying something different the definition of stupid?

The other thing is no one is an unknown come the end of January. They might be to the average fan or the industry at large, but they are not to the club because by that point, they've seen them in match sims and in general training and clubs tend to have a really good feel for where kids are at on a list. Not many kids debut early year one and look horribly out of depth for long. Not many debut year 4 and have long careers at an AFL level. Not many debut year 2-3 and it looks like it's a year too late without being blocked by a good player.

Again we agree and the start of the Sanfl season with the state game, combined with this 2 game trial period the AFL has set now is by far one of the worst set ups as far as preparing a squad for the season we've ever seen. So most people gave the club grace. No one walked around expecting Curtin to play round 1 let alone Dowling. All we can do is trust the club.

Everyone wanted to see a decent body of work first. But, 4 losses go by 0-4, some of the worst tripe of football we've ever seen, generally you'd expect a radical change. One of Dowling or Curtin could have played. This is what we talk about when taking opportunities when they present themselves.

Of course not putting someone out of their depth is key. We want them to succeed. You wont put Curtin on Dixon for example. But there is giving someone a taste and even if Curtin didnt impress in his first game, give him 2-3 and send him back to Sanfl to work on the aspect of the games he struggled. Same with Dowling. All we are asking is do something different. The same isn't working. We know this.

 

[jackster83]

Whilst talent identification and ceilings are important things to consider, that's really the list managers job to worry about and to make sure the kids who you are banking on being core members have as easy a pathway as possible to your best 22. An example of a decision like this would be to delist an out of contract but best 22 member in James Rowe, seeing it lowers the pressure on Rachele to hold a best 22 spot with Rankine coming in - someone the club clearly wants to invest in. Effectively, you want to force the hand of the guys who job depend on the now to select who you want within reason.

The other side of the coin is selection committee job starts and end at winning next week. Now there are some long term considerations here but mostly they are about what identity are you trying to build and are if your elite players are used correctly. This is where lads like Murphy - and McHenry to a lesser degree - come in and why it's not a failure for them to get significant game time. It's not that we're looking to turn them into elite players - we know they won't and have known that since early in the piece - it's that they're best 22 to do a role for whatever the structure we've built demands and if they're holding that spot, they're performing to expectations. Equally, it's why players like that can have a rather low shelf life as a best 22 member at times and can return multiple times, after all, your cores needs are fluid. It also doesn't matter that they do get replaced even after 80-120 games invested, it's a response to your team growing, and you can't predict your needs until you're there.

When it comes to building a contender and future proofing a side, it comes down to the core of guys a team is building and if they're getting games. The rest simply doesn't matter, and it's up to them to find a niche. After all, no one is building a best 22 capable to win a premiership when you're in the mid-table. You're building a group of 12-14 players who you want as the skeleton for any assault up the table. Now, some of your role players will survive as well, and be apart of that assault, because some will just mesh with the core that's pushing upwards. That said, with a good coach, the role players sort themselves out. That said, there is still a fair bit of list and best 22 rejuvenation to come.

Reality is Nicks and the selection committee have so far passed just about every test thrown their way so far to this point. Some with flying colours, others not without much fanfare. This is likely the first failure, though it's not set in stone just yet. At this point, I'm not particularly sure if we've lost our identity by overcorrecting or if the league simply caught up.



Of course we're pushing for finals. However, that doesn't change how selection works. It just influences when the executioner comes to collect their dues - though of course, that's balanced by how much a club loves their guy. The thing is there is little difference to how we're selecting now to how, lets say North Melbourne or Geelong are selecting thier sides in terms of method. Changes will be minimalised when teams are playing well to just the necessary ones, experimentation will happen when they go on extended runs of poor form - especially if coaches are on the hotseat - the next man up will be selected in response to injury/form drops, the kids who look like they'll star will find it easy to get into the best 22 etc.

List management is a different beast and there are significant differences between us and the aforementioned sides.



Nah, that's too specualtive and ignores what a role player actually is. The key question isn't upside, it's how they mesh with your core and what your core needs. You can play a combination of Murphy, McHenry and Sholl without any issues providing it meshes with your top dogs - heck, we won that Dawson after the siren showndown with a team that had all three in a few years back to show an extreme example that it can work in a tough games as an underdog. Like everything in football, it comes back to your elite talents and how your structure around them is working.

The other thing is no one is an unknown come the end of January. They might be to the average fan or the industry at large, but they are not to the club because by that point, they've seen them in match sims and in general training and clubs tend to have a really good feel for where kids are at on a list. Not many kids debut early year one and look horribly out of depth for long. Not many debut year 4 and have long careers at an AFL level. Not many debut year 2-3 and it looks like it's a year too late without being blocked by a good player.

In all honesty, the only kid in our SANFL who we can safely say has any bearing on our long term success, right now, is Curtin and that's because we spent pick 6 on him. Playing a Dowling or Taylor won't because I can guarantee you that every premiership team (and failure) has delayed or hasn't played somoene who looks a likely type in every single year in the lead up to winning a flag and in their flag year. The mid-tiers sort themselves out with time.

Simply meandering along with what we've got will only see us end up like Essendon and St Kilda have for the last decade - finishing between 10-14th each year, with the odd flukey run into 7th or 8th.

It's not just Murphy either - add him to McHenry, Jones, Sholl, Schoenberg, Berry, Hamill, Butts and Borlase and it's just too many low ceiling types who are regulars.

Not everyone is a Max who looks at home right away, but surely we've seen enough to relegate most of this group to depth only.

 

[GreyCrow]

Its happening

 

[GreyCrow]

 

[KingChowder]

Its happening

Lets gooooo

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

 

[skam85]

never in doubt

 

[skam85]

I never want to see him in the SANFL again now

 

[GROTTO]

Dont tell me they dont read BF.

 

[GreyCrow]

Dont tell me they dont read BF.

Yeah I found it odd. I saw the tweet at 39 seconds old and thought beauty Im breaking news

Posted the tweet then scrolled back and it seems like everyone knew at 11am

 

[kirky]

Close thread.

 

[maxlilly]

It's pretty embarrassing that the club have to be dragged screaming and kicking to do what everyone can see needs to happen.
Everyone is telling nicks to run the young guys through the midfield and after five weeks it happens and we beat Carlton.
Everyone is asking nicks when's Curtin going to get a game, he's too talented to be playing sanfl and playing full back.
Eventually the changes happen but it makes it looks like Nicks is reactionary and doesn't know what he is doing