Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat (Read 9305 times) previous topic - next topic
kruddler and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

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

Reply #165 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Yep.  We have maintained our average age in a year which means we got younger.  Collingwood got younger too.  They've drafted in young players and let go of old players.  They're still at the pointy end and the spread between 6th and 10th is .6 years. 


Now consider something what point are you trying to achieve?

Forgive me for not being happy with 'not' getting younger but getting rid of a-grade talent, wrecking a prelim side in the process.

What would i want to achieve? Anything but that.
I've made it quite clear what i would do.

What i' trying to work out, is why the above strategy is fooling every man and his dog and we're giving kudos for it in the process.
This little black duck ain't falling for it.
but we did get younger.  Had to have else our average age should or would have lifted.

Assuming this is how its calculated.  You take the total of age of all players and divide it by the number of players on the list.  So using your numbers we have had 10 to 12 leave.  Out of 46 that means the other 34 to 36 players added a year.  Then we added back the number of players we delisted and ended up at an identical average.  So the net result is despite the majority aging, we as a list have had to have gotten younger to tread water here. 

Thing is WHEN you do this is important too, because not all of our players have had their birthday post October 31st yet so maybe we are older and the birthdays havent happened yet.

For the record by the way if you take our average of 24.9, then multiply this by 46 (number of listed players) you end up with a total of about 1145.  If you add 35 years to this total, and then repeat the division across 46, your total age ends up 25.66. 

Thing is we have a vacancy currently to end up with 24.9.  Ultimately, will white or hollands will add 21 or 23 years to the total and give you a lower average.  So we will be younger even if we add hollands back.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

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

Reply #166 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: LP – on
The importance of "the average age" is vastly over-stated.

You could average 25, then retire a broken 30 for a prime 26, replace a dud 20 with a 75 game 24 and the average would still be 25. None of which considers quality at all.

Yep....and you could retire and trade a-grade talent, get in some 2nd rate c-grader and b-graders and call it upgrading your list under the guise of getting younger.

That's changing the focus again....you've moved away from the age debate to the talent debate

Average age is pretty meaningless when you're talking in averages only a year or two different.

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

Reply #167 –
Quote from: Lods – on
Quote from: kruddler – on


Yep....and you could retire and trade a-grade talent, get in some 2nd rate c-grader and b-graders and call it upgrading your list under the guise of getting younger.

That's changing the focus again....you've moved away from the age debate to the talent debate

Average age is pretty meaningless when you're talking in averages only a year or two different.
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.

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

Reply #168 –
Simple answer.

Firstly, age to me is irrelevant, other than we have a good group of 23 and under.

Most important factor is that Graham Wright, a man who has built premiership sides, and has more list management experience in his little finger than any of us have in our whole bodies, has (for the time being) backed the list management team, and appears comfortable with the recruiting direction the club is taking.

Now it's quite possible, though it would be a bit of a stretch, that Wright kept the List management team on board this year because it may have been a bit late to change them and really no time for a new recruiter to get their head around things.
If that were the case we would no doubt see a change early in the New Year...in which case I may be a bit concerned.

Basically, if these guys with all their experience are happy, then I'm happy and optimistic.
I see next year as holding the line and assessing the needs.
I don't think we'll go backwards and expect a finish somewhere in the wild card group
And then some big recruiting moves prior to the entry of Tasmania...cashed up with cap space and a sound group of players to build on.

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

Reply #169 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Lods – on


That's changing the focus again....you've moved away from the age debate to the talent debate

Average age is pretty meaningless when you're talking in averages only a year or two different.
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.

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

Reply #170 –
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 🤔
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

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

Reply #171 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
Quote from: kruddler – on

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.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

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

Reply #172 –
Quote from: DJC – on
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.

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

Reply #173 –
Quote from: DJC – on
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on

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.
Dean is a kid who hasn't played a game, yes he can be a great defender in years to come but common sense says he will take time like Weitering took time and he won't fix our main problems which are ball delivery into the forward line and conversion.
You are pinning a lot of hope on Hayward who averages a goal a game and eleven possessions. Best return is 41 goals in a season and that was with a red hot midfield ie Warner, Heeney, Gulden etc giving him the ball...
Ainsworth goes at a goal a game and 15 possessions...handy but not game changing and Hardwick saw fit to let him go and clear some cap space.
Chesser wouldn't get a game in any of the top teams and was chased by one other club ...Essendon...Again 11 possessions a game @40 Games ...
Florent ...dropped by Cox and will play at half back according to Ash Hansen in the Josh Daicos role. Again handy but was a salary cap dump and isn't a dial mover.
Quantity doesn't equal quality and with a coach under pressure trying to change his preferred game style to a more modern game plan it's all going to take time and an influx of A grade kids like Cody Walker, Dean and others to provide real class and we are looking at a proper rebuild to do that not another bandaid season which is what we have to look forward too in 2026.
Keep sitting behind the lady with the big hat and wearing the Navy Blue Shades because it's going to get tougher before it gets better and no amount of PR propaganda from yourself or the club is going to change that unless there is a miracle planned for Ikon Park.

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

Reply #174 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: DJC – on
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.  
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

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

Reply #175 –
I don't care what pick a player was taken (paddy dow says hi)
I don't care how many games a player has played in a row....says nothing about output

I reiterate, if these players are so good why did sydney let them go for a washed up hack like charlie and throw in every first rounder they could in the process?
Sydney's recruiters are no slouches.

Blind freddy can tell our 2026 list will be stronger in 2026??

Blind freddy will have an expose for being wrong.
You will not.

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

Reply #176 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Lods – on


That's changing the focus again....you've moved away from the age debate to the talent debate

Average age is pretty meaningless when you're talking in averages only a year or two different.
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.

Whoa there, K.

"Our list got weaker," you say. Well, losing a few good players will do that... however, that's only half the story as they have been replaced but you seem to assume that the newbies are nowhere near the quality of those we lost. Seems to me that's a premature assumption. 2026 needs to unfold for us to get a read on how this trade turns out for each side.

I would suggest that we 'nosedived' in 2025 for a number of reasons strong reasons which have been well documented (leadership/injuries/gameplan), the least of which would have had anything to do with the age of the list or any suggested list rejuvenation - whatever that was. I don't get your logic that because of list age and attempted 'rejuvenation' we'll continue to nosedive?

"WHY does everyone have so much faith in the current list management team?" You ask, then write that the stated reasons from others on here are contradictory or weak. Wow. For a start, not everyone has unbridled faith in our current list management... but most seem to, myself included. Why? Leadership, experience and track record and I refer to GW and CD. Excellent reasons for cautious optimism... plus, they're our leaders and deserve our support and every opportunity.

Let's say you've just taken up a new leadership role at a new organization and you've a track record of success in your recent past, but those around you tell you that you'll fail because your predecessors failed. Mmm. Pretty jaundiced logic, eh?
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17
 

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

Reply #177 –
It probably applies to a certain extent to both sides in this debate.
But one of the features of it is the inflexibility of some thinking.

Convinced that they are right, folks are often unable to see or accept an alternate point of view.
There is a tendency to speak in absolutes...e.g."If we lose player X, we're screwed"
We're never 'screwed', we're just challenged and it's at that point others step up.
You never completely lose the "whole player" because that ignores the qualities the replacement brings to the job.
And challenge present opportunity.
At that point you sometimes see abilities surface in a player that may have been repressed due to the secondary role they had played in the past.

We see players like Tom, Jack and Charlie depart and what some see isn't their average performances...it's always their best performances.
Others see the lack of effort, recent form and injury history.
Same with players coming in.
Depending on your point of view regarding list management we look at and give more emphais to the positives or negatives.

Looking at in terms of 'one to one' replacement is a pretty pointless activity because players bring different strengths and weaknesses.
As a result a superior skilled player with a less committed attitude and an injury history may be more than compensated by a less skilled player with consistency of effort and durability.
What is most important is not the individuals but how they fit into and 'enhance' the team.
"We haven't got a replacement for Charlie"
I suspect we have it more than covered.
McKay's role will change, and he'll become the key target, but he also now has a bit of goalkicking talent around him.

Look, an injury list similar to the last two years and a bit of off field disruption and it could all go pear shaped again.
I don't think anyone doubts that.
But it's not the inevitability that some people feel it will be.
At this point of the year we have no idea of the make-up of the team for the first game.
Arguments about age and talent out/talent in are all pretty irrelevant.
The only thing that counts is how the 'new' team comes together.



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

Reply #178 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Lods – on


That's changing the focus again....you've moved away from the age debate to the talent debate

Average age is pretty meaningless when you're talking in averages only a year or two different.
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.
People have faith in the current list management team, because of the car crash that has surrounded our footy club in this department outside of Silvagni.  Austin is not a departure from his approach.  He is more of the same, just with a different name.  You dont like him because you dont agree with his strategy (or the clubs direction) but thats more of a philosophical question that can only be discussed in theory.  The second we do something different, you lose the ability to prove or disprove something.   Hence why you come across like screaming into the void, and most people on here going, well, you cannot actually assert that and be proven correct.  All you can do is point to a failing and say I told you so.  Even that failing though is potentially based on a pre conceived idea.  Austin didnt strengthen our list for 2026.  He didnt do it for 2025 either.  That much is true, but the list composition that got us to a prelim in 2023 was as much by his machinations as it was by SOS.  Do we get there without his moves to secure, Cerra, Hewett and Saad?  Probably not but that flaky underbelly that we have all hated at our club has persisted during both recruiters regimes.  SOS did a good job with us.  It could have been better, and he will rightly admit that, but he played the hand he was dealt.  Austin effectively did similar.  We are glossing over something else here too.  To me, the thing that stopped us more than anything else was dumb luck.   A run of season ending injuries ive not seen in a footy club before since 2015. 

Back to recruiting, you can prioritise younger and also bring in mature agers at the same time.  To me, the focus was that best 23 around Sam Walsh's age, and that remains true, even with the 27 year olds we have brought in.  We were attempting to shift our key performers from the pointy end of the list (Docherty, Cripps, Saad, Acres, McGovern, Williams) to a mid tier.  This was also an effort to make us more attractive to stay at for a guy like TDK.  In his mid 20's and being offerred big dollars to go.  We are adding youthful talent, stick around. 

Thing is, HOF was good.  ACL.  Jagga appears to have all the right stuff said about him.  ACL.  We have Dean joining the fray, and we also have Walker coming in, but then the AFL have pulled a fast one on us.  Instead of getting the guys without the premium draft picks, ala Daicos and all the Brisbane Father sons like Fletcher and Ashcrofts x2 we have had to pony up to get them.  So that means looking at futures rather than the now.  It had to mean sacrificing selecting a key tall to net in additional draft picks next year.  To me, that was as simple as they wont help us now, and we will need them moving forward to flesh out the following.

Just to post it again, because its become a bit lost:

From the youngsters who are a mix of Bonafide AFL players and not, here is the result (I chose 25 as a cut off, so 26 year olds miss out at the date of writing i.e. Cerra, Cotters, Fogarty, Boyd, Lewis Young, Ainsworth, Florent, Hayward who are all about 27 as they are not the future):

Cowan (21)----------O'Farrell(19)--------M. Carroll(20)

H.Charleson (19)----------Duffy(22)--------Dean(18)

Camporeale. L(19)--------Camporeale. B(19)--------O. Hollands(22)

Walsh (25)--------------Reidy(25)----------------Chesser(22)

Ison(19)-----------O'Keefe(21)------------Motlop (22)

Byrne(18)-----------Kemp(24)----------------Moir(21)


Int from:

Lord (21), Wilson(20), Monahan(21), Jagga (20), Evans(24), Young(24)

To this group we might add Will White(21), or Elijah Hollands(23) depending on how that final list spot falls, or a complete other option.


This team is not the finished article but from where I can sit, we have focussed on bringing in the draft picks to flesh the above side out, we have dumped salary to also leave us room to secure the futures of this lot, and bring in other dial movers and still acquired some handy players for the top layer whilst giving us a strong hand for a more sustained addition of talent during the years when the draft is going to be heavily weighted to Tassie.

Rightly or wrongly, our club has made the decision to neglect the short term and gamble on a few players that are not dial movers but solid citizens (to be frank, using history as a guide, our rise was fleeting, and too much went wrong to sustain us up there and most of the truly big clubs never really feared us as Geelong has been the only side with bonafides we have consistently troubled over the last 5 years) in an effort to carry us forward.  Thing is, this might be enough if it all goes well enough, which thus far it hasnt.  I wouldnt be banking on it all going swimmingly either, as that just doesnt happen at Carlton, but you never say never.  Irrespective, I see enough in what we are doing to prevent us bottoming out once Cripps goes, and potentially to get us back up the ladder fairly quickly and hopefully removing that flaky under belly in the process. 

Maybe im too optimistic about it, but I can see what they are trying to do, and that is enough for me.  @kruddler you seem to be most negative about what they are doing and I understand that too, as there is no time like the present and we need to be getting better now, but old Carlton used to walk that road.  Old Carlton would top up with a couple of players and then put us in the mix.  Thing is, old Carlton is dead, and any attempts we make to resuscitate it seem to end up causing premature bottoming out, and doesnt look to be a sustainable way of moving forward.  I have a cousin who is similarly minded.  He is in his late 40's and always likes to bag me out for not understanding the old Carlton way because im only in my early 40's, but I remember what it was like.  Thing is, that was over half my lifetime ago, and I dont see the point in attempting to emulate old Carlton.  The competition has 5 extra teams now, and attempting to be old Carlton has simply delivered our worst performing 20 years in the clubs history, with a few highlights.  So am happy there is a plan, we are executing it, and it seems to have its heart in the right place.  Will the results marry up?  Im not sure, but I for one am happy to have a proffessional approach which will hopefully avoid years of pain.  I can handle a couple of dissapointing years, but not another decade of "rebuilding".

Finally looking at Liverpool.  They went out, and got the gun high priced recruits this off season.  The team is not performing, their previous A graders are struggling because too much change, some of the acquisitions have been non complimentary and the end result?  The worst start to a Premier League season in over a decade.  Beware the big profile recruits.  It hasnt worked for us much (Judd aside) and even then the price may have been a bit too high to have been worthwhile.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

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

Reply #179 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Lods – on


That's changing the focus again....you've moved away from the age debate to the talent debate

Average age is pretty meaningless when you're talking in averages only a year or two different.
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.

i can’t believe how much your position has changed especially in the last 6 months

You were always one of the very much glass half full over the last decade and now what seems in a very short time have flipped.

do you agree?