Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat (Read 511 times) previous topic - next topic
ElwoodBlues1, marineblauw, DJC and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat

Reply #15 –
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.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat

Reply #16 –
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.

Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat

Reply #17 –
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
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat

Reply #18 –
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.

Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat

Reply #19 –
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.

Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat

Reply #20 –
Ok then Senator, lets go back to what you quoted given you are so fixated on it:

Developing Kids who are playing ahead or on schedule.

Give us your interpretation of why that is wrong considering the Irish lads are playing VFL football?

Would that have them playing on schedule?  Particularly when one of them suffered an ACL injury (yep that curse hit us on the speculative option as well) before he even arrived at the club! 

Using Setanta O'Hailpin who was a mixed bag of "successful" he was recruited in 2004 spent the year in the VFL, made his debut in 2005 (his second season) and was introduced to a team that was dead last on the ladder at the time playing a grand total of 1 game.

Just to dot point this, how old were they when they made their AFL debut:

Zach Tuohy was 21 years old
Setanta O'Hailpin was 22 years old

The two Irish lads we have dont really have the same hype and fanfare I remember seeing about Tuohy and Setanta either, but guess what Rob is only 21, and Duffy coming back off an ACL injury is 22, so considering the ACL gives him an extra 12 months leeway, if either get a game at AFL level, one could logically conclude they are on schedule, particularly when you consider that they are joining a better outfit than the one Setanta joined anyway.

So now that we have established that, remove your fixation on that, and the fact that I have highlighted them solely as players who fit the bill of being young and developing.  I didnt put any expectation on guys I havent seen at AFL level, because they are an as yet unknown quantity being judged by what they do at VFL level, and what attributes


Anyway, no doubt there will be another argument.  Im not a fan of it, but we have been rebuilding on the down low which is probably why we had players walk last season, which is a testament to why they needed to go.  Sometimes kids give you better than senior players.  Just ask Brisbane.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson