But Stewart wasn’t dropped for that. He was dropped for technical deficiencies in his game that need to be rectified. Not even close to similar.
1 Like
You mean his goal kicking deficiencies ?
If so why wasnt daniher dropped for similar issues ?
Or other players who suffer different technical difficulties ?
And if it was such a problem , why did it take over a year for him to be dropped ?
Agree this was pretty dumb it was right in front of me. Showed a complete lack of understanding of the game and what i’m sure the coaches would have expected in that situation to put the ball out and re-set in our forward half and trap it in there.
2 Likes
Not even Fark Carlton would want him.
Who are the similar players at those clubs? Who are the fringe players they’ve held onto for 9 years who even when they play are in the bottom few performers? Colyer has never even been in our top 10 B&F. Name the premiership players who fit that bill? I stated they had to be middle or better meaning that for their role/position they needed to be at least regarded as decent against their peers, even if its mainly within the club (guys who do thier role every week) I don’t believe you could find an area where Colyer would rate in that band. As a mid his disposals would be near the bottom or as a small forward his goals, inside 50’s & things like pressure & tackles would be ranked below average for his age group.
Lets start with Richmond because I believe its actually the moving on from those types of plodders that turned Richmond around. Who from their premiership side do you believe compares to Colyer? I’d rate Miles as a far better performer who has multiple top 10 B&F finishes yet can’t get a game for them & didn’t play in the finals. I would be shocked if he’s still on their list next year & even then he has only been on their list 5 years.
Bulldogs had 13 players under 24 in their premiership side so who of the guys around Colyer’s age do you think compare? Jordan Roughead is the only one I think comes close as far as longevity on the list but not exactly a star performer. Even then he has Colyer well covered for games & has better B&F results. I think it would be fair to say Roughead was at least a middle to good key defender for multiple years who wasn’t a fringe player.
Hawthorn - again I’m not seeing hanging onto fringe players for 9 years as a part of their success. Maybe a guy like Durea you could say was similar as far as not being above average as a performer but you couldn’t really make the case he’s been fringe. 15 games last year is the least he’s played since 2013. Billy Hartung is a guy I would have put as similar to Colyer but they delisted him last year.
Hanging on to players for too long has been a hallmark of our list management and it’s not been successful.
Nothing to do with goal kicking.
Like I said, technical deficiencies in his game.
I agree with your approach on this JBomber.
Colyer and Myers are the perfect examples. I really think the Saga stuffed things in relation to them in multiple ways.
Maybe we would have been happier to let them go around 2013/2014 when Melbourne were sniffing if we were more confident of getting other decent players in around that time and not wanting to be so loyal.
Maybe they would have improved if they didn’t have the 2016 break.
Maybe we wouldn’t have offered them contracts till next year f it wasn’t for the Saga.
Who knows those answers… but I really hope the club starts to take an approach like you’ve suggested going forward.
This offseason will be interesting.
1 Like
They already have, it’s why players like Stanton and Howlett and Hocking and even Watson are not on the list.
Don’t fall for JBomber’s crap.
3 Likes
A quick list of some blokes who don’t meet your criteria
Hawthorn - Schoenmakers & Spangler
Footscray- Dixon
Richmond- Lloyd & Hampson
That’s not counting all the blokes retained as depth on either list.
You want to delist Colyer - fine - your opinion
Delist everyone over 23 - which is what you claim to want to do - who’s not an above average player ( on CD’s highly suspect rating system) indicates either you’re new to this footy thing, or you just like bright shiny playthings.
2 Likes
Give him a couple more weeks. His best is damaging and it would be great for us if he can find it again.
2 Likes
The ONLY thing I can remember that he did well was the immediate play on and quick handball to Long after the sublime Zerrett kick (start of the last qtr).
Everything else he fluffed up…
Over running balls, missing tackles, getting caught HTB 30 out, the kick to Tippa outnumbered on the boundary, keeping the ball in play.
Just a poor, poor game.
1 Like
Reckon it would be a good message to players if Colyer gets dropped for his poor performance even with Essendon down on numbers. If Worsfold wants to benchmark standards and strive for consistency/greatness Colyer should be playing VFL this weekend.
4 Likes
Huh? Lloyd & Hampson didn’t play in the GF so yes they are types of players Richmond moved past to become a better team. Lloyd was only drafted in 2013 so been on their list 5 seasons & will very likely be delisted at years end, Hampson of course has already retired & was on their list for 5 years.
Dixon has been on WB’s list for 7 years & had 2 seasons of clearly well above average performance. In 2015-2016 he was one of the best small/medium forwards in the game with 40 & 50 goal returns. Only a really desperate person would try to compare his career to Colyer’s . Dixon has now had 2 poor seasons so I would expect he is most likely facing delisting.
Do you mean Matthew Spangher the guy delisted 2 years ago after only 4 years on their list? Seriously are you not seeing how these guys are nothing like holding on to a guy for 9 seasons for an average of about 10 games per year (allowing for 2016) & not many of those games can be regarded as better than average?
OK Shoenmakers, you may have found 1 player comparable in terms of being on their list for an extended period & not being a particularly good player. Does that mean you believe that was somehow a good list management decision for Hawthorn? In their last GF Shoenmakers was 2 years younger & had already played more games that Colyer has now but if you use my standard then yes I believe Shoenmakers should have been delisted before now & I think you will struggle to make a case to suggest that would have been the wrong list decision. Once again I will be very surprised if he is not delisted at years end.
If you want some better comparisons try players like Dyson who also played 9 seasons for not much, Slattery 8 seasons & now we have Jerrett up to 7 seasons. Does anyone really think that was good list management?
Now once again I said they had to be best 22 & at least middle or above average at 24+ or should be delisted. There is no point retaining players who have never been able to give you a sustained return or at least have some exposed good form & reason to believe they can replicate that form or reason to believe they can get even better (reach a high standard). Colyer has a few good games spattered over 9 seasons. Thats simply not justifying of more time on the list. As I said I’m happy to give him the rest of the year given the unique situation of the saga but if he’s not playing decent footy by the end of the year he should clearly be moved on.
1 Like
I’m not comparing them to Colyer.
I’m comparing them to your sweeping list management assertion.
Which you have now modified to 24+ rather than your original 24 and over statement.
All good lists have older depth players.
Live with it.
Huh? My original post stated 24+, just in case you don’t understand that means 24 & over. If you get to 24 & have not yet cemented a place in the best 22 over your career or at least had a period of good football as a base, then you will be delisted at just about every other club. No other club retains older players simply for depth. Older players can transition out of the best 22 & become depth but are almost never then retained for any further seasons.
You just can’t admit you were over exaggerating initially can you?
Now it’s ok to keep “transitioning” some older players.
If you’d qualified your initial list management assertions you would have actually come close to the reality of Colyer.
Once best 22. Now on current form unlikely.
Between now and the end of the year a judgement will be made as to his spot next year.
Form, injury prep, capacity for improvement on current form, and depth we have in his role, will all play a part.
Slash & burn list strategy is bullshit. Look at Carlscum.
I think a few years ago coyler was important to our team because he had pace, which we really lacked at that stage. Now he’s not as critical as we have that outside run in our best 22. He’s still good depth and I believe he is still valuable.
I find often guys returning from a long injury get themselves up for a big first game and then have a down game next up. I’m hoping he can turn it around because you can never have too much pace in your side.
Been think that about Colyer too.
His deficiencies had to be tolerated because his strength of breaking the lines WERE needed for a side that had Stanton,Jobe,Howlett,Hocking,Hepp.
We have the speed now in Saad McKenna McGrath,Fanta Wulla.
Hes very tradeable imo.
4 Likes
How was I exaggerating? Colyer has not fit my criteria at any stage. His only stretch of decent footy was 4 years ago and even then it was a few good games for half a season. My contention that I stand by and you’ve not countered is that his record is not enough to have had this long on our list and there would be few if any successful exceptions throughout the league.
By 24 a player should be at or very close to their peak, if that peak isn’t actually that good then they need to be moved on. You will find this is the case with the vast majority of players over the entire league. Clubs almost never hang onto depth players in this age bracket which is exactly why a guy like Jerrett who has played footy this year & been emergency a few times will certainly be cut in spite of being closer to best 22 than younger players.
By transitioning older players I mean you simply move them out of the best 22 as their decline & younger players development overtake each other. You would never re-sign an older player with the intention of them being purely for depth. Look at Stanton last year, he was considered best 22 at the start of the year but was transitioned out of the side & became a depth player. Retaining him for another year would have made no sense.
Again go through the league & look at the players from his draft. I’d argue his return would be less than any other player still on their original list. We have a history I believe of hanging on to players for too long & I gave examples of this. I can’t think of a single example of a player who was kept for 9 years then became a good footballer. I could see what he potentially offered as far as his pace was concerned but he’s still not showing signs that he has any other weapons or is overcoming the deficiencies that have plagued his career (like fumbling). Again players in their mid 20’s very rarely suddenly overcome shortcomings. The potential that keeps us persisting with younger players needs to be realised by a certain point & I believe that’s by age 24.
As for the Carlton analogy, which 24+ aged players did they cut that you believe was a bad decision? I’d suggest Carlton’s issues have compounded from repeated poor draft choices outside their top end picks rather than cutting players early.
3 Likes
If we could choose from our VFL list I would swap Colyer for Hind in a flash
5 Likes