Re recruits, just because we get them, didn't mean we think they are best 23 starters.
Eg look at the ruck. Tdk left, we needed someone to come in. Obviously we try and get someone with great talent but had we not been able to trade for one, we would've got one another way (draft, ssp)
So with that in mind, a ruck was coming one way or another. So does that make Reidy a starter? I don't think so. Will he play some games? IMO absolutely.
Another way of looking at recruits is this. What did it cost us? What could we get with that same value elsewhere?
Eg chesser. He cost us pick 41. Could we get a ready made player with pick 41 at the draft? Unlikely. So he was recruited as it was better than we could expect to get otherwise. Sure, he would have some desirable attributes and fills a position of need etc (debatable, but i digress). But ultimately, it's simply about value.
Every year we get sucked into included all our recruits into our best 22 (23) and every year we get disappointed.
I can't see how someone like cheeser gets a game in our side after only managing 4 in a very poor Eagles side in 2025... and not much more in years before that. Even if it's simply down to injury history.
I note that we were rated as third most affected by injury to senior players in 2025, as just posted on afl.com.au. That in a season where we were a quantum leap better than what we were in 2024.
Now, if we can improve by the same amount in 2026, then maybewe'll have enough ammunition to argue about our list management properly. Certainly, we should play closer to our potential with a fitter list.
That is about the most backwards way i've ever seen to calculate 'injuries'.
For instance, if Cripps got injured and missed the year, he wouldn't finish in the top 5 coaches votes, thus wouldn't be included in the list. The more injured you are, the less games you play, the less chance of getting you in the coaches votes meaning the less 'important' you are. Bollocks.
Hang on! You can't have it both ways. You can't say 2023 is SOS's team and then in the next breath say Austin has had six years. The only one moving goal posts around is your good self.
All list managers build on their predecessors list to some extent. Cripps and Docherty were part of that for Silvagni so was Ed Curnow You can't just dismiss the players that Austin added for 2023. And the real fruits of Austin's tenure are yet to hit their peak.
lol.....i'm trying to follow YOUR rules and you won't let me.
If i'm trying to follow my rules, you wont let me.
Why am i not surprised.
Current list management team is infallable. Now i see the light.
The list position we found ourselves in was a combination of the efforts of both. You can't have one without the other. And two injury hit and disrupted seasons later you want the one left gone.
Crash mentioned 2002 but there was another injury hit season in 2014 when many of our best players including Judd and Kreuzer missed big chunks....and Robinson and Garlett went off the rails. The brains trust at the time decided we needed a rebuild and the incoming list manager cut the list and sent the club into oblivion.
Hang on, we can't judge the current crop for years, but we can give them kudos for piggybacking on the previous guys efforts within a couple years??
Geez these goal posts are moving so often i don't even know which way i'm kicking now!
From a previous list....these players were NOT SOS's from 2023.....
Hewett Saad Cerra Acres Docherty - Before SOS Cripps - Before SOS O. Hollands Motlop Jordan Boyd Cincotta
From that list, 2 are not by either. 1 is already delisted 2 are on the outs (Boyd and Acres) ...and Motlop was rumoured to be on the way out to PA this past trade period (Durdin got booted instead).
How well did we do with Charlie doing nothing? Imagine if we get him up to speed and added depth around him, rather than losing depth. Thats not so 'magical' now is it?
Results did worsen, but thats about the playing list rather than the coaching. Even Docherty said as much post retirement.....thats if you don't want to take my word for it which was well documented at the time as well.
....and one last thing. The result 'proves' we were brittle?
In case you are unaware, that team that showed how 'brittle' we were, were a goal off having a 3-peat.....and we had them 5 goals down on their home deck early. Doesn't seem brittle to me. Seems to have been beaten by the best side in the modern game right now
So are you saying our list manager had built a side capable of winning a flag
I would argue that as a prelim side, drastic measures were not required, but rather staying the course wouldve yielded better results.
And I would argue that as a preliminary final side in '23, we were brittle as evidenced by the result. How did Charles perform in that finals series? The cracks were there to the objective observer. In terms of the coaching group (leadership)... we did stay the course and the results for 2024/5 worsened each year.
To assume that because you make a preliminary final you'll just naturally, even magically, improve the next year is naive at best... hubris at worst.
2 sides to every coin.
How well did we do with Charlie doing nothing? Imagine if we get him up to speed and added depth around him, rather than losing depth. Thats not so 'magical' now is it?
Results did worsen, but thats about the playing list rather than the coaching. Even Docherty said as much post retirement.....thats if you don't want to take my word for it which was well documented at the time as well.
....and one last thing. The result 'proves' we were brittle?
In case you are unaware, that team that showed how 'brittle' we were, were a goal off having a 3-peat.....and we had them 5 goals down on their home deck early. Doesn't seem brittle to me. Seems to have been beaten by the best side in the modern game right now
I don't think anyone would question the time and effort Kruddler puts into his analysis of list management and other discussion points. However, there's plenty to question about his methodology, assumptions and conclusions, and that's what helps make this place tick.
Again, I don't think anyone here would be unhappy if we were to draft the next Jonathan Brown, but there's a much greater chance that any club hoping for a Jonathan Brown will end up with a Jonathon Patton. Bringing in another Stephen Kernahan via trade or free agency would be far more likely to be successful.
The scuttlebutt is that we were interested in Louis Emmett but the Bulldogs snapped him up. Would the "draft a KPF" crew been happy with that? What about if the rest of the scuttlebutt is correct and he's going to be developed as a KPD?
What annoys me about the criticism of our list management team's work at the draft is not so much the bleating about not picking a KPF, no matter how banged up or unready for AFL he might have been. It's the downplaying of the fact that we snared the best KPP in the draft. All I read is 'he can't play on 200cm KPFs', 'we only got him because he's a father-son pick', 'he won't be ready for AFL', he's too short', 'he won't be as good as Jack', 'we've put all our eggs in one basket', 'we should have drafted a KPF instead of a KPD', why didn't we draft a State league KPP?', 'we could have taken [insert any delisted rookie KPP]' ...
Drafting Harry Dean (and Jack Ison) was a masterclass in NGA player development and astute list management. That is probably why both Fox and ESPN rate our work at the draft as equal third best ... but what would they know? And they're probably following an agenda.
1. Forget about any outside ratings. It's based on one years work and 1 year only. 2. Nobody is complaining about Harry Dean. I made 1 comment about a perceived weakness and that was confirmed. That doesn't mean we delist him now. Everyone had weaknesses. Move on. 3. Why do you give kudos to the list managers for drafting people we've had developing for years? That is shooting fish in a barrel. Kudos to the club for developing an academy that is starting to pay off. Not rocket science to take them.
What is it about my methodology that needs questioning? Any assumptions and conclusions can be argued as is the nature of assumptions and conclusions.
As for emmett, you miss the point again. "Oh he is no good because he will be a defender?" Maybe. Remember where the name came from... the club.... albeit indirectly. I don't care if it was him or whoever. That's not the point. The point is the club failed to fill a need, and one they highlighted... and it was really easy to change that.... but they didn't.
Perhaps you should be questioning why the club wanted him at all if he is a defender?! Or is that not possible because they are not to be questioned or spoken bad about.
I sunset how happy you'll be after another poor year
The bar isn't set low. It's set unrealistically high by ignoring all that occurred with the club during the season just gone.
All any supporter can ask for is continued improvement each year. But that path is rarely a straight line and there will be peaks and troughs which usually occur around the availability of players.
He gets a pass because we had injuries? Its not the injuries that killed us, it was the lack of talent behind our starters that killed us.
Now who would be responsible for that? Perhaps if we didn't have 13 small forwards on the list we could've coped with injuries better?
The lack of a balanced most was exposed by injuries and he still gets a free pass out of it?
Seriously. Kruddler makes some valid arguments that on the face of things may make many people question the club list management direction.
But to suggest that he does so without the full resources, effort and background knowledge that the club possesses isn't lazy...it's a fact.
I think the problem is that in presenting a lot of information contrary to the club's direction it is also presented as a 'fact' rather than an opinion.
I'm truly sorry if the 'club knows a little more' about the draftees' hits a nerve. It's just something I happen to believe...and yes it may not always end in a desired outcome, but that doesn't mean multiple options haven't been explored. It's like an iceberg...we only see the tip and the final result.
Let me be clear.....i have my own personal opinions on who i would draft and when, and i don't think i've ever suggested that my knowledge on any given player is greater than the clubs.
That is not the point.
I always point to a 'type' that we need and i might offer a suggestion based on 'the wisdom of the masses' and phantom drafts etc on who should be available at our pick who fits that type. In this instance it was ludowycke. Last year it was one/either of the twins.
Now club preferred Emmett, so be it, i dont care, its fits the bill, do it.
So lets not fixate on the names, its never been about the names.
I've given the list management team the benefit of the doubt many a year over based on all the excuses i hear every year. - We didn't have the picks. - There wasn't anyone talented enough at our pick - We had greater needs elsewhere - This was a shallow draft for talls - Maybe nobody wanted to trade with us - This player was too good to pass up on.
All valid excuses in any one year. Maybe even a couple years. You can't go the better part of a decade recycling those excuses though. There comes a time where you can (and should) make things happen. At the end of the day, we simply haven't.
I've run out of patience. I flagged the need to get backups up to speed before Charlie and Harry and Weiters etc get to retirement/declining output age and it simply isn't happening and if that is not on the list management team to sort out, then please tell me which department is responsibile and i'll direct my arguments at them instead.
Last year i said our list got worse, and few agreed....well that and some injuries proved that it clearly did. This year i'm saying the same and thats yet to be confirmed.....but if i'm correct, there will be enough egg on faces to feed a starving nation.....and i'd love to hear what excuses people have lined up this year.
One last thing....how many people picked either Lewis Young or Mitch McGovern in their bests teams? These 2 players were basically told to look elsewhere because they are not up to scratch and not the future. Both of these guys have been retained and both are in line for a started KP role simply due to lack of other options, and are our best backups at worst. Does that not set off alarm bells with people?
I flagged at the end of night 1 that we should trade up 3 spots to ensure we get 'our guy' whoever that may be. This is before we let someone else bid on ison ensuring it would allow us to get both.
Opportunity was there, it didn't happen, i can't buy that excuse.
Of course you can't buy it. Because we 'play' draft night (and the trade period also) in our minds and on keyboards and not in the 'real' world. And in our world everything plays out to get the result we desire.
We have no idea of the discussion between clubs and only a vague, and often biased, knowledge of list management priorities for the night and how they affect the make up of a list for the following year and in the future.
We don't see or hear the talks between clubs (other than maybe some vague report that they are discussing a player or picks). We don't see or hear the offers that club make on the night. We don't know the offers to trade up or down that are rejected. We arent privy to the phone calls. We have absolutely no idea of other clubs strategies and priorities and why they would be willing to trade up or down a couple of spots (they may have an interest in exactly the same player).
If you can think of a scenario, a list management team has probably also thought of the same scenario, but with much greater appreciation of the pros and cons... and the obstacles.
We look at a draft profile and see "Ooh, He's tall and he has more strengths than weaknesses, lets pick him!" We don't spend hours observing these young players actually playing, and talking to them, which sometimes might reveal something other than playing ability, that might make a club hit pause on the player or overlook them completely.
And then we ask, WTF were they thinking
A couple of things.
I'm not saying pick player x because i've watched him more than anyone else.
I concede the club watches a lot more than i or anyone does. That doesn't mean they don't make mistakes.
In this instance i'm talking specifically about the player YOU raised that was flagged as a need/want by the club by those in the know. There were 4 players mentioned, we got 3 of them (albeit 2 of them were f/s academy picks) the 4th was the one in question - Emmett.
The line, "well he didn't last until our pick" is simply poor list management. If we want and/or need someone, you do what you need to do to get them. Yes, some years its true. 100% it is not true every year for the past 10 years! That is what i can't buy.
I've been flagging the same thing for years. Draft KPPs BEFORE you need them. We simply haven't done enough of that which has been evident by how we've been unable to cover injuries to this area in the past. Whether or not we completely change how we 'build a team' from here is a common argument.....and thats fine. But that doesn't take into account Harry is a year closer to retirement and his replacement is still not on the list....and perhaps, like Charlie, won't be on the list until after he's already gone.
So....going back to Emmett. IF we wanted him and rated him. like the tea leaves suggest, then we failed to deliver in getting him. Maybe this year they 'really tried' and nobody would have it. Perhaps thats true. What about last year? What about the year before? What about the year before that?
There is always 'some' excuse that people come up with to defend the list management team. Why? There seems to be a field of Melbourne Cup winning horses paraded past us and every year we pass on them because we are looking for a unicorn instead. Someone who is elite, but 'free'. Well unicorns don't exist, so change tact.
So again, this isn't me being dirty about 'my guy', this about who we as a club rated.....and didn't get, so don't play that card.
