Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Recent Posts
1
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by kruddler -
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Quote from: kruddler – on


TBH, i don't know what point you are trying to make and that might be where the confusion is.

My understanding is you've split the list in 2.
You highlighted/prioritised/focussed on the younger group and put that into a best 23, thats not a best 23. You've said the group is on schedule, which i disagree with and have said why.

So what have i got wrong from that?

Are you saying that we are rebuilding?
Are you saying that the current crop will exceed our older players?
Are you saying we don't care about traditional positions?
Are you saying that we are covered in traditional positions?

There doesn't appear to be a conclusion.
I didnt say they were on schedule.  Read it again
No you did. You edited it later. I cut/paste it into my reply with lods.
2
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by kruddler -
Quote from: Lods – on
Quote from: kruddler – on


Don't know, never said that.

Never said you did...just asking for a friend.
So I guess we won't be hearing anymore about players not being 'big'enough to play key positon.
It will always be about being able to handle the role.

Pedantic seems to be word of the thread.

If a player is not 'big enough' to play KP, it is implied that they cannot handle the role.
Alternatively, just because players are big enough, doesn't mean they can handle the role.

I've been pretty consistent on this and not sure i've ever listed height as requiring a minimum.

I have said that i think Kemp is best suited to a '3rd tall' role than a 1st/2nd tall role (in part because he will have a lesser opponent on him)....but not mentioned his height as the reason.

I questioned whether Dean could play on the 2m types as my only criticism of him, one which was backed up by those in the know.
That doesn't mean he can't play taller than his height, but may struggle on the really tall players. Which, even Weitering struggles with. Thats fine 99% of the AFL would struggle with that.

I can't recall where, but someone was talking about Bret Thornton the other day and saying they felt sorry for him and the club wrecked him. Why? They asked him to do more than he was capable of, simply because we didn't have anyone else who could do it better.....or as well. He was undersized for a KPP (with his attributes, not a freak athelete or anything) but did very well with what he had.
This is kinda what i'm worried about.
Doens't matter who is on your list, you can always write a name to play CHF. Height doesn't stop you from writing a name.
Can they do the job required? Who knows.
Certain attributes make it easier for you to the job required though.....and for KPPs, height is something that can compensate for other areas, and its not something that has to be trained.

If you are setting up your ideal player on AFL '26 and there is no cap on your attributes, what do you do?
Speed? high or low? High, obviously faster is best.
Awareness? high or low? high
Acceleration? high or low? High
Agility? high or low? high
Endurance? high or low? high
Height?? high or low? high is better. If all things are equal, there is no advantage of being small.
You don't have to be tall, but in an ideal world, you are.

3
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by Thryleon -
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Thryleon – on
nah you're being pedantic.  You know exactly what I intended and are playing politician.  Argue a point that wasn't being made.  I divided the list into the two groups and said prioritising the second layer if you want to be pedantic, not focusing on the second.

Hence why ainsworth was recruited and we also brought in the other more mature players.

TBH, i don't know what point you are trying to make and that might be where the confusion is.

My understanding is you've split the list in 2.
You highlighted/prioritised/focussed on the younger group and put that into a best 23, thats not a best 23. You've said the group is on schedule, which i disagree with and have said why.

So what have i got wrong from that?

Are you saying that we are rebuilding?
Are you saying that the current crop will exceed our older players?
Are you saying we don't care about traditional positions?
Are you saying that we are covered in traditional positions?

There doesn't appear to be a conclusion.
I didnt say they were on schedule.  Read it again
4
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by kruddler -
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Quote from: kruddler – on


I don't know what you want me to say?
You broke down the list into 2 groups by age. You suggesting the young group is the direction that the list management team is focusing on and that we will be ok with this direction based on those players.
That's an opinion.
My opinion is that your opinion would have made a better point without shoehorning people in to back up that point.


The point is the point.  The Irish lads are currently talls in that under age bracket.  They arent shoe horned in there. They might do a setanta one day, or they might be delisted but this is where our list is at today.  You dont like that, and THAT is a you problem.
Yes both older people and younger people will be cut. My point about that was you can't say how good the young group is when some of them will be cut next year. Same point as above, shoehorning people in hurts your statement imho.

I'm not bagging out your overall statement, I'm not asking you to put up a sacked list in just saying listing all of our young players and saying they are on schedule is a fallacy.

nah you're being pedantic.  You know exactly what I intended and are playing politician.  Argue a point that wasn't being made.  I divided the list into the two groups and said prioritising the second layer if you want to be pedantic, not focusing on the second.

Hence why ainsworth was recruited and we also brought in the other more mature players.

TBH, i don't know what point you are trying to make and that might be where the confusion is.

My understanding is you've split the list in 2.
You highlighted/prioritised/focussed on the younger group and put that into a best 23, thats not a best 23. You've said the group is on schedule, which i disagree with and have said why.

So what have i got wrong from that?

Are you saying that we are rebuilding?
Are you saying that the current crop will exceed our older players?
Are you saying we don't care about traditional positions?
Are you saying that we are covered in traditional positions?

There doesn't appear to be a conclusion.
5
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by LP -
The title of the thread says it all.

One of the biggest problems the AFL has is nepotism, and that leads to known knowns ruining the game. You get a bunch of Old Boys running the sport the way they learned to play it, formulaic, lacking innovation, they are stuck in the "they know best" mode of operation.

But most footballer's won't ever be useful coaches or tactical geniuses, on the whole they are gifted athletic robots who learned a repetitive task to perfection. When somebody turns up with an out of the box solution like Dimma did with Nthmond, a genuine advantage is gained and the robots try to copy it. The genius of Dimma was that he looked at the list he had and the current state of the rules and devised a game plan that suited the resource on hand, he didn't try to change the resource to fit his idea of perfection.

It's a fundamental truth that if you just copy everybody else you'll never be better than average.
6
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by DJC -
Matt Duffy has had one pre-season and has played only 13 games of footy in his life.  He is 194cm and 90kg, he can mark the pill (5 marks in a game is his best), he kicks the ball very well, can run like the wind, and he plays a physical brand of footy.  He has also been dropped in at the deep end being asked to play as a key defender against big blokes who have grown up playing footy.

I think that Matt shows a lot more potential than many of the KPPs that were taken in the national draft.  While this may well be his make or break year, I wouldn't be writing him off just yet.

Rob Monahan is 189cm and 86kg and he is a year ahead of Duffy.  He has played 35 VFL games and has shown significant improvement in his second season after being moved into defence.  He has picked up the nuances of our game, makes good position, uses the ball well and is fleet of foot.  Like Duffy, he was dropped in at the deep end in his first season when asked to play as a KPF.  His game against Collingwood this season was outstanding for a bloke in his second season of footy, but he needs to bring that form every week.

It's a make or break year for Rob too, and he'll need to continue his improvement if he's going to stick around.

As cat B rookies, the Irish lads cost us very little and they have greater potential than Ty Gresham, at this stage.
7
Blah-Blah Bar / RIP Jimmy Cliff
Last post by DJC -
Jimmy Cliff passed away aged 81.

Widely credited with popularising reggae, Jimmy was also a multi-instrumentalist and ska, rocksteady and soul musician.

Notable tracks include  “The Harder They Come”,  “Many Rivers to Cross”, and “You Can Get It If You Really Want”.

Jimmy was also an accomplished actor and, while it’s probably one of his lesser roles, my favourite Jimmy Cliff movie is the 1985 “Water” with Michael Caine and Billy Connolly.

RIP
8
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by Lods -
The way I see it is that we're doing a mini-rebuild but working the opposite way to Silvagni who developed the spine first.
What we seem to be embarking on over the last couple of draft trade periods is working on building a base of younger, smaller players with a mix of specific skills that complement each other. Lumping the small/medium forwards into one group is wrong, because each and every one of them bring different qualities

That doesn't mean totally ignoring the taller key position players as they become available, but wait for quality (Dean). If it's not avaliable at your pick don't waste it on a 'maybe'.
We all agree talls take time. The question is what gives you the greatest chance of picking up a good one.
Draft them at 18 (where physical maturity is all over the shop) or wait until you see the player at a more mature age and grab them through trade or free agency.

At the moment we can probably say that the development of most young players is on track...but just through the nature of turnover in list management they won't all survive the cut. Thry's given a pretty good account of where they are all at.

The Irishmen will need to get a wiggle on, they don't trouble the statisticians, they don't really stand-out, but both play as defenders so it may be they're doing the jobs set  for them which means the club is OK continuing the experiment for another year. Duffy has only had the one year after a season recovering from injury. We'll know a whole lot more as to their longevity next year when a decision will be made. It costs us little,but the club is persevering so they must see something.
9
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by Lods -
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Lods – on
Shoehorning?

Is that like saying if a player isn't 198cm plus, and built like Tarzan then they are not a Key Position player. :D

Don't know, never said that.

Never said you did...just asking for a friend.
So I guess we won't be hearing anymore about players not being 'big'enough to play key positon.
It will always be about being able to handle the role.
10
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by Thryleon -
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Thryleon – on
after all I posted thats what you took away? 


Fixed it for you. Happy now? Its still the same delineation, and we will cut from the afl group as well as the none ready group moving forward but there is one important distinction between the two groups.  Players leaving the first group were afl ready but not good enough.  Players being axed from the second group will be because they arent going to get there with us.


No one expects the Irish to make it, but technically they're key position sized.


I don't know what you want me to say?
You broke down the list into 2 groups by age. You suggesting the young group is the direction that the list management team is focusing on and that we will be ok with this direction based on those players.
That's an opinion.
My opinion is that your opinion would have made a better point without shoehorning people in to back up that point.


The point is the point.  The Irish lads are currently talls in that under age bracket.  They arent shoe horned in there. They might do a setanta one day, or they might be delisted but this is where our list is at today.  You dont like that, and THAT is a you problem.
Yes both older people and younger people will be cut. My point about that was you can't say how good the young group is when some of them will be cut next year. Same point as above, shoehorning people in hurts your statement imho.

I'm not bagging out your overall statement, I'm not asking you to put up a sacked list in just saying listing all of our young players and saying they are on schedule is a fallacy.

nah you're being pedantic.  You know exactly what I intended and are playing politician.  Argue a point that wasn't being made.  I divided the list into the two groups and said prioritising the second layer if you want to be pedantic, not focusing on the second.

Hence why ainsworth was recruited and we also brought in the other more mature players.