Depth I'm going to have a think about it (but I won't be leaving Lord out ) He's my guy for 2026
I said in one of Kruddler's polls that Lord was definitely in my midfield rotations but I went for the untried Jagga Smith and the two "specialist" wingers in Acres and Hollands. I suspect that Lord will be in the 23 more often than not.
No polls, no votes, just name the 23 players you think will run out against the Fluffy Ducks.
While team structure is important, you don’t have to name players in positions but keep team balance in mind.
You can have 8 defenders, 8 forwards and 7 midfielders, or any other combination of 23 players. Apart from Harry O’Farrell, assume that everyone on the list is available. White and E Hollands aren’t on the list.
It’s been an interesting exercise - and thanks Kruddler for putting the time and effort into the polls.
However, I think that the process has lost connection with reality and we’re now being asked to vote for players we’ve already voted for or have no intention of voting for.
I would prefer a simple vote for 8 defenders, 8 forwards and 7 midfielders.
Steve Smith is getting on a bit for an elite sportsman and I don't think that he'd pass a skinfold test. That's a little surprising given the energy he must burn while in perpetual motion at the batting crease.
This is not fat shaming as I'm more than happy to see elite sportsmen and women who aren't built like racing greyhounds. It makes me not so worried about not being able to see my toes
You don't build a list by selling off talent, particularly when that talent is invested in the club and provides a role model and leadership on and off the field.
Thought you said Charlie was invested in the club. He said he was staying. Coach said he was staying. But.....he's wearing red and white now.
Players being invested (or not) can change with the wind. Value has a pretty steady decline.
I don’t believe that I said that Charlie was invested in the club. Charlie is invested in Charlie … and that’s fine.
Florent and Hayward had just signed four year contracts and were highly valued by the coach. Nek minnit there’s a new coach and they’re gorn.
You don't build a list by selling off talent, particularly when that talent is invested in the club and provides a role model and leadership on and off the field. Those qualities are why I believe that we'll miss Doc more than the other three.
That said, footy clubs and their players are resilient and are used to change. Our players have mentioned the challenge and excitement of new teammates and new coaches. They don't sook about a teammate going to another club or a favourite coach moving on. They just get on with the job.
List managers aren't focused on our best 23 for next season. They've got lots of balls in the air and are planning several seasons ahead both in terms of potential new players and those who may want to move on or have passed their use by date. Think back to SOS's "sustainable list".
I'm interested to know what Thry means by "old Carlton". To me, "old Carlton" went when SOS and his crew moved into a list management hub, adopted the Boston Red Sox's list management database and began using an analytics program for player evaluation. Austin has moved further forward with a dedicated list management strategy guru and data analysts to crunch the numbers. No wonder some supporters struggle to keep up.
We only have one survivor from the "old Carlton" days now, not that there weren't a handful that had decent careers.
Both unlucky, particularly Neser after his five for.
I don't mind Bazball - both as a concept and a spectacle - but you do need a plan B.
Bazball is an excuse for poor technique and a lack of willingness to grind when necessary with both bat and ball which also indicates poor/lazy application. Throwing the bat at everything vs good line and length bowling works 1/10 times and having a plan B bowling strategy of 6 bouncers an over might work vs hapless teams like the Windies but wont vs the better teams.
The basic philosophy - removing fear of failure - is fine, but that doesn't compensate for poor technique, tactics or decision-making.
Apparently, Warnie is the inspiration for Bazball, but the way the Poms are going about it lacks Warnie's understanding of the game situation and appreciating the nuances of the game. Jim Maxwell summed it up with his "Baz Bollocks" comment.
Neser and Doggett, need the specialist spinner and extra pace/bouncer ability on a flatter track which will help England's flat track bully batsman more. Bazball might be history by the end of the series along with its architects...
Both unlucky, particularly Neser after his five for.
I don't mind Bazball - both as a concept and a spectacle - but you do need a plan B.
Comprehensive win as was always the most likely outcome.
Excellent bowling from Neser in the Poms' second innings and Steve Smith certainly seemed to have an important engagement that he he was keen to get to ASAP.
Pat Cummins will be back for the Adelaide Test and Lyon will probably pass the drinks tray to someone else. Which two bowlers will miss out?
It's easy to underestimate the importance of our NGA in building our list. Yes, we have two highly-rated draft picks in Harry Dean and Jack Ison who are yet to play a game , but they're not unknown quantities.
Dean, in particular, has been at Princes Park for years, spent much of his rehab from a broken shoulder there, has had Nic Newman working with him on his video reviews and has been following the club dietician's eating plan for a couple of years, He knows most of the players well and has taken part in training drills and match sims for years. Ison hasn't had quite the same exposure, and he doesn't have a club legend father. He is still known around the club, knows the players and the training drills and has been mentored by Sam Walsh. The fact that neither Dean nor Ison are newbies walking into Princes Park for the first time gives them an advantage over Talor Byrne, and many other youngsters who were taken in this draft. The club also knew exactly what it was getting when if committed to both lads, and that's another advantage.
They still have to put in the work and hope for good fortune but they're ahead of the field.
Cody Walker is following a similar path to Dean and should have a seamless transition to senior footy - provided the AFL doesn't screw us with its changes to father-son rules.
I have faith in the list management team because I don’t believe that an outdated, formulaic approach to building a list is the way to go.
And I’d still like to know who the A-graders are that we lost 🤔
Outdated you say? Sydney have been one of the best performed teams since the vfl turned into the afl. They felt the need to get an a-grade talent through the door. At the same time, let go a few b and c graders in the process. What makes you think our list management team are smarter than Sydney's? Since most of the excitement is around the guys we got from them and they poached a guy we wanted to keep, how the hell can you congratulate our guys and chastise the swans using an 'outdated' list management approach? Seriously?? ... and before you answer go have a look at the trade thread and get peoples thoughts on the guys we ended up getting BEFORE the trade went through. Did anyone rate them compared to Charlie??
If i havn't made it obvious enough that Charlie is an a grade talent, Docherty is worth mentioning while we are at it. TDK has the ability to be a-grade, some may say he is already (in not one of them). It's clear the guys we got in have not had better careers than them though.
I've said previously that we'll miss Docherty more than the other three but it's a long time since he was an A-grader. Charlie's best is almost A-grade and his inability to have an impact in big games is his weakness. He was a C-grader in 2025 and there are ongoing doubts about his knee. Tom has potential and may become an A-grader at the Saints, or he may continue to flash in an out of games. Jack has a crack but, apart from not being able to stay on the park, is just a good ordinary footballer who showed some promise as a KPD.
I've mentioned it before but Florent and Hayward have been in the system 12 months less than Curnow and Silvagni and have both played 184 games to Curnow's 149 and Silvagni's 128. Florent played 130 consecutive games that included every game in Sydney’s last two Grand Final seasons. In other words, he was a lock in Sydney's best 22 until the struggling Dean Cox took over as coach. Hayward kicked 29.10 last season and 41.16 in 2024. Both signed five year contracts with Sydney in 2024, sparking this response from then coach John Longmire: "We're absolutely thrilled [that Hayward has re-signed]. We were always confident but until you get the deal done, you're not 100 per cent certain. Not only as a player but importantly as a person. He's a high-quality person. From the moment he and Ollie were drafted, to see them come into the club as 18-year-olds and then see them both commit long term to the club is one of the real thrills as a coach."
Ainsworth was pick 4 in the 2016 National Draft and has played 158 high quality games. He has been a fixture Gold Coast's best 22 since 2022 and signed a four year contract extension in 2024.
Chesser is a bit of an unkown quantity after being taken at pick 14 in the 2021 draft and missing most of last season with injury. He played the last four games and showed that he hasn't lost his blistering pace.
Then there's Harry Dean, who is universally acknowledged as one of the best KPP prospects in years, and Jack Ison, who looks to be a dynamic general forward with elite foot skills. Time will tell of course for Harry and Jack, but Blind Freddy could see that our 2026 list is stronger and has greater depth.
No its going back to the original point. Our list got weaker.
The opposition to this justify this by saying we got younger as we were too old. I'm pointing out relative to the opposition, we got older. The players we recruited, half of them were older than our average age. That flies in the face of the arguement that we are rebuilding/rejuvinating and getting younger. THIS was the justification for destroying our prelim list and the reason we are nosediving.
I'm calling BS on the rejuvination of the list as a viable strategy given we've barely moved the age needle, and done so less than most who are not doing the same thing.
All this falls back to the same question which i can't get a straight answer on.
WHY does everyone have so much faith in the current list management team? The reasons i've had so far are contradictory at worst, and weak at best.
As you know I agree with you regarding the list management or lack of.. The argument from the opposing opinions is that the new players as a collective combined with what we have already will be better able to execute the new improved gamestyle which includes better delivery, more variety of forward options and better quicker ball movement. Sounds great in theory until you figure out that most of the work will still be done by the same players with the same deficiencies and that the players we recruited won't be the quality prime movers required to initiate the changes required.
But that’s just your rather jaundiced opinion EB.
The players we lost had minimal positive impact on our 2025 fortunes and the players we traded in are a hell of a lot better than you’re willing to admit. Then there’s a likely generational CHB, a very highly rated “tweener” forward, and a hard nut midfielder who nails his targets.
It's largely irrelevant whether a team's list is a month or two older or younger. However, statistics and common sense tell us that teams with mature, experienced players are more likely to be premiership contenders, particularly if they have a dash of youthful brilliance to add to the mix.
For the record, incoming players from this year's trade/free agency/draft period; 3 players are younger than 20 1 player is younger than 24 but over 20. 4 players are older than 24.
If you include our SSP and MSD additions: 3 players are younger than 20. 4 players are younger than 24 but over 20. 5 players are older than 24.
That seems to be a good blend of youth and experience to me.
As i suspected, we have actually got older, relatively speaking, in this current off-season AND we've lost a-grade talent.
Why people are fawning over our list management team i still cannot comprehend.
There's some dodgy figures there!
According to an AFL article by Cal Twomey in June 2025, the average age per team in 2025 was:
Collingwood – 28.5 years Geelong – 26.5 Brisbane – 26.5 Carlton – 26.2 Sydney – 26.1 Western Bulldogs – 26 Melbourne – 25.9 GWS – 25.8 Hawthorn – 25.7 Adelaide – 25.6 Port Adelaide – 25.4 Gold Coast – 25.3 St Kilda – 25.2 North Melbourne – 25.1 Essendon – 24.9 West Coast – 24.8 Richmond – 24.7 Fremantle – 24.6
While the average age of the players who left us is one year older than the average age of players who have come in, I can't see how our average age could drop from 26.2 to 24.9 and from 4th oldest to 6th oldest. Collingwood's average age dropping from 28.5 to 25.6 is unbelievable given that most of their veterans are going around again.
It seems that there are several "average age" tables with differing values. Draftguru has our 2026 average age as 25.1 and ranked 6th in terms of age and experience.
And who exactly are the A-graders we've lost? It's been a while since Doc was an All-Australian.
