Mega Thread 2013 TRADE PERIOD discussion thread - Aidan Riley (Crows) added as a DFA

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't see why Jetta (or Nicholson) or any other player would be delisted now. If they were to do it then why not ages ago?

Nicholson is already back training. In a lot of ways I think that signifies he's not going any where. I expect to see Jetta back on the training track in a weeks time.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I don't see why Jetta (or Nicholson) or any other player would be delisted now. If they were to do it then why not ages ago?

Nicholson is already back training. In a lot of ways I think that signifies he's not going any where. I expect to see Jetta back on the training track in a weeks time.


Footy is a ruthless game. Perhaps the list managers want to see who's available at pick fifty-whatever-we've-got and weight that up against the uncontracted guys we have. Perhaps there's two or three kids they think might be available at that pick who are superior to Jetta/Nicho, but who might get snapped up by other clubs by that pick as well. So they keep these two listed, wait till draft day, and if the desired players aren't available, they recontract the already-listed player. If a player IS available... perhaps Jetta would get the boot if Garlett is still there at our 50's pick, for example, or retained if Garlett is gone.

That's why they'd keep them listed.
 
Wonder how much more depth roos will be looking for into the middle
There was no pressure on our midfielders from underneath this year so at least if Riley ( and just as an example ) Tuck Freeman Toumpas and Mckenzie arent automatic selections this season they will hopefully be racking up possies in the magoos and making the firsts earn selection

If trenners has a couple of 15 disposal games i expect there to be pressure from underneath now
 
Footy is a ruthless game. Perhaps the list managers want to see who's available at pick fifty-whatever-we've-got and weight that up against the uncontracted guys we have. Perhaps there's two or three kids they think might be available at that pick who are superior to Jetta/Nicho, but who might get snapped up by other clubs by that pick as well. So they keep these two listed, wait till draft day, and if the desired players aren't available, they recontract the already-listed player. If a player IS available... perhaps Jetta would get the boot if Garlett is still there at our 50's pick, for example, or retained if Garlett is gone.

That's why they'd keep them listed.
We would have to delist them prior to the draft and then re-draft them should player X not be available at our pick.

You can't have more than the allotted listed players on your list at any given time.
 
57 being used to upgrade Clisby.

I very much hope not. From what i have seen of training so far this year (admittedly early days), Matt Jones and Clisby are miles behind the rest. I wouldn't upgrade Clisby in a fit.

I think our recruiters agree with me too. I think we will draft from pick 57 AND the PSD. They will make room.

If you attend training as i have three times now this year, it is obvious who takes a place on an emerging AFL side seriously and those who don't.

If we take action action the way we should, there should be 2-3 places available to us (excluding pick 9).

You can guess who will be excluded.
 
I very much hope not. From what i have seen of training so far this year (admittedly early days), Matt Jones and Clisby are miles behind the rest. I wouldn't upgrade Clisby in a fit.

I think our recruiters agree with me too. I think we will draft from pick 57 AND the PSD. They will make room.

If you attend training as i have three times now this year, it is obvious who takes a place on an emerging AFL side seriously and those who don't.

If we take action action the way we should, there should be 2-3 places available to us (excluding pick 9).

You can guess who will be excluded.
The full list hasn't started training, yet you can make an assessment of 2 players based on god knows what.
 
I very much hope not. From what i have seen of training so far this year (admittedly early days), Matt Jones and Clisby are miles behind the rest. I wouldn't upgrade Clisby in a fit.

I think our recruiters agree with me too. I think we will draft from pick 57 AND the PSD. They will make room.

If you attend training as i have three times now this year, it is obvious who takes a place on an emerging AFL side seriously and those who don't.

If we take action action the way we should, there should be 2-3 places available to us (excluding pick 9).

You can guess who will be excluded.

As CTHORANGE says above, the club have already publically committed to upgrade Clisby.

The only way we can use pick 57 in the national draft AND pick 2 in the preseason draft is if we delist both of Nicholson and Jetta.

If we keep both of Nicholson and Jetta, we will only be using picks 9 and 40 in the national draft and not using pick the preseason pick.
 
In such a weak draft, I wonder if the club may even just use pick 9 and use 40 on Clisby - then take an extra rookie and just see if any of the new rookies stand out at Casey?

May not be a bad move if they don't fancy any kids left at pick 40.
 
I very much hope not. From what i have seen of training so far this year (admittedly early days), Matt Jones and Clisby are miles behind the rest. I wouldn't upgrade Clisby in a fit.

I think our recruiters agree with me too. I think we will draft from pick 57 AND the PSD. They will make room.

If you attend training as i have three times now this year, it is obvious who takes a place on an emerging AFL side seriously and those who don't.

If we take action action the way we should, there should be 2-3 places available to us (excluding pick 9).

You can guess who will be excluded.

By the way Dees2014..

Welcome to the board mate :thumbsu:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

In such a weak draft, I wonder if the club may even just use pick 9 and use 40 on Clisby - then take an extra rookie and just see if any of the new rookies stand out at Casey?

May not be a bad move if they don't fancy any kids left at pick 40.
I thought you had to use a minimum of 3 picks to eligible for the draft? I am most likely wrong though.
 
The full list hasn't started training, yet you can make an assessment of 2 players based on god knows what.

I'm not making an assessment - it requires far more knowledge than I have available to me, just like you. I am making an observation based on watching them closely at training over three sessions. Obviously I was making that observation on those on the park for those training sessions so far this year (really some people are either smart arses or extremely thick).

If you have also been at those three training sessions then I am prepared to engage in a discussion with you based on direct knowledge. If you haven't, then the "God knows what" comment I will take with the contempt it deserves.
 
By the way Dees2014..

Welcome to the board mate :thumbsu:
Thanks Demon 14. I look forward to some constructive comment and debate on here as we show continuous improvement over the year. I think we have started really well, and am very optimistic about what we might achieve this year. Hope you are too.
 
Thanks Demon 14. I look forward to some constructive comment and debate on here as we show continuous improvement over the year. I think we have started really well, and am very optimistic about what we might achieve this year. Hope you are too.

Well I am to an extent - but I've been conditioned to temper my levels of optimism in recent years..

If you are getting down to training - any notes or comments on the sessions would be greatly welcomed over on the pre-season thread I imagine :thumbsu:
 
I'm not making an assessment - it requires far more knowledge than I have available to me, just like you. I am making an observation based on watching them closely at training over three sessions. Obviously I was making that observation on those on the park for those training sessions so far this year (really some people are either smart arses or extremely thick).

If you have also been at those three training sessions then I am prepared to engage in a discussion with you based on direct knowledge. If you haven't, then the "God knows what" comment I will take with the contempt it deserves.
You didn't actually say what Clisby and Jones are "miles behind", so explain what your observations are.
 
You didn't actually say what Clisby and Jones are "miles behind", so explain what your observations are.

They are unfit, I saw it last week too. They were running last by a distance in pretty much every lap/sprint.
 
You didn't actually say what Clisby and Jones are "miles behind", so explain what your observations are.

Well in the "endurance" running ie anything over about 200m they were beaten by everyone except the ruckman Spencer, Gawn and Fitzy, and quite often by Spencer as well, who by the way seems to have returned from the break in tip top condition. Matt Jones in particular is struggling, and his only real spot is in the mid field ( albeit maybe on the HBF) and I am certain we will not put up with this season mid fielders who have a huge effort then are cactus for the rest of the game.Clisby and Jones (at least at this stage) are simply not up to league standard either in fitness or endurance, and as such, in my view neither of them deserve to be on our main list since they had the break to ensure peak fitness. If the rest of the list can come back in good condition so can they. I think Roos is a lot about attitude and commitment, and I don't think this was a good look in either case.

That is all I am saying.
 
Well in the "endurance" running ie anything over about 200m they were beaten by everyone except the ruckman Spencer, Gawn and Fitzy, and quite often by Spencer as well, who by the way seems to have returned from the break in tip top condition. Matt Jones in particular is struggling, and his only real spot is in the mid field ( albeit maybe on the HBF) and I am certain we will not put up with this season mid fielders who have a huge effort then are cactus for the rest of the game.Clisby and Jones (at least at this stage) are simply not up to league standard either in fitness or endurance, and as such, in my view neither of them deserve to be on our main list since they had the break to ensure peak fitness. If the rest of the list can come back in good condition so can they. I think Roos is a lot about attitude and commitment, and I don't think this was a good look in either case.

That is all I am saying.

Considering pre-season has been going for literally one week I wouldn't be making such harsh judgements on these players in particular. This is their first full pre-season at AFL level. This time last year they were probably still on holidays after finishing up their state league seasons.
 
Thanks for clarifying, but you don't know whether they've been told to ease themselves in, rather than go flat out. If they're still miles behind after xmas, then I'd be worried.


If they were told to "ease themselves in" then I think that would apply to everyone. My point was, they are miles behind their peers, which is not a good look, particularly in front of a new, highly demanding coach.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top