padre wrote:
I personally think that the finishing touches argument is full of holes. If that were the case I really dont think that we would have slipped back the way we did in Rattens last year. Its not what a quality side does. We were there abouts in terms of the 8 but nothing more.
We were building a list for a very specific and recognisable game style - 2012 was an abberation (and we've done worse in 2014).
2012 -> we finished 10th with an 11W/11L record on 108%
2014 -> we finished 13th with an 7W/1D/14L record on 89.7%
padre wrote:
Supporters may have been hoping that we just needed a few touches but the reality was different. What we needed was a change in mental application . A new coach was meant to bring this. Malthouse i believe , thought that we had a decent (not brilliant) list and was looking forward to bringing the best out of our underperforming players. The problem was that we had very little leadership besides Judd. But there was little that Mick could do to improve on Judds output and leadership, and so he began working on those with the potential ie Murphy Gibbs Yarran Hendersen etc . Now if you cast your mind back to our list back in Micks first year
Murphy - was a shadow of his late 2014 self in leadership terms <- should never have been made captain
Gibbs- Was nothing special <- Has been good for a very long time playing in a multitude of key roles. Leadership-wise, he isnt significantly better now than 2 years ago
Hendersen- was an emerging leader <- and still is. Missed 1/2 of 2012 with injury and was severely limited in many other games
Yarran- was sooking <- rubbish. He had turf toe in 2012 and struggled for most of the season with it. Had already established himself as a damaging player in 2011. Just couldnt build on it in 2012.
Betts - was half way out the door <- sure. slightly down no doubt but still worked hard and had a reasonable year
Waite- was IMO no leader. But i think from memory injured. Should have been traded whilst he had value (but injured) <-never has been. Was injured under ratten too...
Scotland- was slowing down and not going to last <- agree
Carazzo injured <- still had great leadership. Was injured in 2012 too.
Kreuzer injured <- has been for a while - not a leader
McLean was on the nose <- not true. Was clear best 22 when mick arrived and displayed good leadership qualities
Simpson good <- underrating him. Has always been a great leader and should have been captain.
Fast forward to today and after the 2014 season, we can see green shoots of leadership everywhere.
Judd- is Judd <- so nothing has changed
Murphy - breakout captaincy year <- has improved but still shouldnt be captain
Gibbs- Fantastic Year <-formwise sure - leadership isnt a standout quality of his
Yarran - Has bounced back with a vengeance <- formwise sure. Leadership? he isnt a leader
hendersen- had a patchy year due to injuries. But remains a good leader <- always has been. Nothing has changed since 2012
Menzel Showing his real potential <- wasnt around under ratten
Thomas - great leadership <- sure but given his age/injury profile was he brought in to round off the list or to round it off for a flag?
Buckley- passion <- sure but so? has always had great leadership potential (captained u16) - ratten's last year was his first at the club and he missed approx 8 weeks with a broken finger. Hard to display/be recognised for leadership under such circumstances
Simpson great year <- should still be captain
Rowe- a malthouse favourite <- was a ratten favourite too - just never got on the park.
The missing spark (leadership) in 2013 is there now and ready to go once our injured players get back in 2015. The addition of thomas in 2014 was needed due to our lack of leadership in 2013 and the loss of Betts. I believe it was recognised that Murphy and Gibbs needed some help and someone like Thomas was recruited not just for his ability but also his leadership.
Your lists havent really proven anything. If we talk about leadership mick should have -> made simpson captain and allowed murphy to develop as vice captain for a few years and kicked waite out of the leadership group. You've also forgotten duigan, who despite his limitations as a player was a more than handy leader that if managed properly could have remained around the club for several more years to help the players coming through.
padre wrote:
getting rid of some mentally fragile players in Waite, Garlett, Robinson , Lucas, Bootsma (this year) and replacing them with new blood is going to allow us to take that element of our game away and replace it with hopefully more determined, solid, predictable performances.
Garlett has had 1 bad year (thought some claim 1 1/2) and that was under mick. Prior to 2013, noone questioned garletts ability/desire/application. Personal/family issues affect people in different ways and will affect some more than others.
As for the others - I would have traded robinson long ago (very limited upside, too many flaws, we have too many similar player), waite was at an age where we shouldnt be reliant on him so no great loss and lucas was just a failed pick - - natural list turnover is a good thing.
If you talk about losing players - then I'd have more issue with the way scotland and duigan ended their careers than any of the 4 you listed
padre wrote:
So in essence I am disagreeing with your starting premise that we didnt have the list to work with and therefore we should have been rebuilding. Yes we had some holes, yes we lacked leadership, yes we were mentally soft. But the Leadership and Mental softness is without doubt a major focus of the coaches and recruitment department. There are some very positive signs emerging IMO. Only time in 2015 will tell, but if the leadership and Mental softness problem is solved then that will influence the whole playing group and could be THE SINGLE most influential factor in our rebound. Of course to this we have to add some well targeted recruiting that has the potential to fill those gaps - particularly the Waite, Betts , McLean, Scotland departures.
lol - you dont understand my starting premise.
I've always said our list was good pre-mick and needed rounding off - I've even said that I'm supportive of the acquisition of thomas on that basis. What I've had issues with has been the game style that mick tried to implement given the way our list had been shaped under ratten - gross simplification but we went from run and gun/take the game on through the centre to stop/start - kick down the boundary line (compare 2011/12 v 2013/start of 2014)
I've also had issues with the mixed messages being sent out by mick and the club - no limits, our list is shit, actually its not that bad, its shit, we are closer than you think, its shit - the statements are self serving (to take pressure off) and dont provide a sense of direction for the club, let alone supporters
padre wrote:
I am also amazed at HOW LITTLE importance people place on the size of the injury list. A solid core of fit players that have played together for extended periods is invaluable. When half of them are not playing, there is a real disruptive effect on the team performance as newer younger players try to learn and emulate their older more senior injured team mates. I am hopeful that this stability will also add to our performance in 2015
I'm in total agreement with you here however I'd go further and say that having a conistent game style is also important. That was always the big risk with sacking ratten - it was going to put us back a couple of years (IF everything worked/the game style evolved from rattens rather than was revolutionised when cf to ratten).
On injuries though, you must have a short (or selective) memory
For all the complaints about post-season surgeries heading into 2014 and their impact on performance, the actual injury list/number of games missed is significantly less than what happened in 2012
'Best 22' players that managed 15 or fewer games
2012 - warnock, white, henderson, waite, laidler, joseph, thornton, lucas, hampson, carazzo
2014 - kreuzer, buckley, judd, carazzo, walker, curnow,
In 2012 we also had a huge number of depth players that missed >4 and in many cases >8 weeks of footy - some of them have since established themselves in our best 22 and look likely to remain there for some time to come (rowe, casboult, buckley, bell). Pretty much all the younger or depth players that might have been expected to come into the side in 2012 had injury interrupted years - in 2012, virtually all the tall players on our list missed >8 weeks (KPP, KPP depth, & KPP project/rookies/scholarship player)
Your post also talked about continuity - in which case my question to you would be - do you think turning over 25 players in 2 years is really good from a continuity perspective? Imo, the answer is no and in that regard, I'd have leaned towards having a slightly lower turnover of players over the past couple of years (even if that meant retaining 1 or 2 that havent done/shown enough but were still young enough to potentially do os - ie lucas, okeefe, mcinness as examples off the top of my head)
Login
Register
FAQ
