Blue Vain wrote:
Have to disagree on most counts.
Firstly, addressing your drafting etc is pointless until you have a strong development program to bring them into.
Suggesting "development takes care of itself" is either mischievious or plain ignorant to how successful clubs operate.
Quote:
Far more pressing is upper management, coaching, line coaches, and recruiting to compliment a gameplan and style of play that we are going use. And this structure needs to be mimicked at the Ants, so players coming into the AFL know their role and perform. If we establish that, suddenly development is taking care of itself.
I stand by what I said. How can kids develop to the gameplan and structure with a part time coach? What ever the 1st grade coach is structuring up and teaching, needs to be mimicked at the Ant's level. There is the foundation to your development. Kids coming up have to worry about doing one job, which they've already been doing and practising. Therefore they have confidence in it. Collingwood, Hawthorn and Geelong practice this, and imo they're the yardstick we need to be looking at.
Blue Vain wrote:
As for not being able to teach football IQ, thats nonsense.
75% of football development is about improving game knowledge for players. Nearly all training drills are game sense based. the majority of theory is based on structures, set ups etc.
Out of curiosity have you played footy? I spent all my time down back, so this is what I know.
You can't teach a defender to read the play like Harry Taylor or even Laidler. You can teach skills, and you can drill a side to be positionally responsible. What you can't teach is when to leave your man, help out your mate. Where to anticipate where the ball is going to enter. How to cut off your opponent effectively etc ...
In today's footy, what separates the good players from the great?
Their physical stature -- Buddy and Hawkins
Ability to read play, ie be a ball magnet -- Ablett, Murphy, Judd, Jobe etc
Be tough & be a ball magnet-- Selwood, Swan
All these guys have elements you just can't teach no matter how good your development staff are.
Blue Vain wrote:
Suggesting we go and get "Bell types" is farcical. Football changes from year to year.
You cant just go out and recruit a certain type of player because he suits this months style of game.
You need players who can adapt and evolve with the game. That comes down to good development and creating well rounded, versatile players.
We need to draft a well balanced list with depth in most positions. Its then the job of the coaching group to improve the players.
You're not Denis Pagan, are you?
[/quote]
All I meant by the bell comparison is, Bell has an afl ready body, Meanwhile Bootsma and Buckley types are years off developing an AFL body. The game has changed from the 90's.
The better teams, Pies, Hawks, cats ... look at how much bigger than us, they are. Tight finals games are won in the trenches at the contested ball.
Essendon* had the right idea to get bigger. The problem was they needed to do this as a 3 to 4-year plan, draft bigger bodies while slowly bringing along their current list. You can't hit the gym and grow overnight without side-effects, as they are learning.
Another good example that modern AFL needs patience to build something, there aren't any quick fixes.
Hopefully if malthouse is the guy to take us up, he proves me wrong and takes this list into contention immediately. He would be the exception to the rule.
By all the Synbad, Moshe, BV etc way of thinking, our sole problem is ratts & the board. It may well be. If that's the case bring in MM with this list and we should be in contention from the first bounce in 2013. Hey?