He’s a cheat is what he is. Almost in Toby McLean territory.
‘Want’ was a poor choice of words, true.
But the ‘We should’ve got Mathieson’ stuff started on draft night, and hasn’t stopped since.
And I don’t reckon he’s a miss at all.
Compared to Redman & Morgan? I’ve only seen him play 2-3 games but he looked impressive for a 1st year player to me. No idea about attitude issues or anything like that but he also looked like he has some onfield mongrel which I think is a good thing. Again I have to believe if we’d had a similar 1st year from our guys we’d be very happy indeed.
At least if people said we should have drafted him from the start that’s gotta be better than waiting a few years till they come good & then picking a player to say we should have drafted them.
But how do we know the choice was Morgan V Mathieson?
Maybe if it wasn’t Morgan, it would have been somebody else? And it’s still only year 2, Morgan and Redman aren’t done yet. (Although Morgan isn’t looking good, hard to argue against that.)
I’m not disagreeing with your ‘Midfielders, midfielders, midfielders’ ethos, and I kind of agree with much of what you’ve said in here.
But personaly, Mathieson looks like a garden variety plodding inside mid who you could get in a rookie draft, and may one day win a Liston medal.
He certainly doesn’t belong on Dodoro’s miss list, not yet anyway.
I think what struck with a few people who closely follow the draft was that Morgan wasn’t rated by any of the well known “experts” as being in the frame for our pick that early. It very much looked like a similar situation to the Steinberg pick where we picked a guy most believed we could have got much later. Now none of that is my work, I don’t watch much junior footy so I just go by what some of the guys who’s opinions in the past have rung true. Rightly or wrongly part of the criticism of Dodoro has been that he’s pulled the trigger too early on some players. Again, I’m not saying he’s done that here, yet, but its fair to say that popular opinion was that Morgan was a later or rookie prospect given his injury & commitment issues. I guess he looks like a genius if it comes off but so far his strike rate on these picks hasn’t been great. FWIW I think Morgan has the right physical attributes we needed to draft but I’m concerned that we haven’t managed chronically injured players well in the past (it took about 5 years to get Dempsey on the park regularly).
Numbers don’t say everything.
Watching the game, our clearances are under pressure from opposition tackling and lack of shepherding so we clear it to the wing or half forward flank.
When the opposition gets a clearance they have a better ratio of clearing the ball into their forward line due to our lack of tackling pressure.
When we had Fletch, Solomon, Wallis, Hardwick, etc we welcomed that centre clearance because we backed ourselves in to win the ball and counter attack.
Nowadays, our backline is under severe pressure because the forward pressure is now requiring the midfield to assist with the counter push.
The midfield group we’ve had for the last ten years has struggled to consistently run both ways across a full season. It’s been inbuilt in them and the older players won’t change their ways now.
The midfield needs an overhaul. Not small tinkering.
Berry signed contract extension but McClug didn’t… Welcome Hugh!!!
2 Likes
I think its a bit unfair to put Steinberg in that discussion. I know its popular on Blitz to say that, but the reality is that there was very trustworthy news that came out after the draft which indicated he was almost no chance to make our next pick. If we wanted him, it had to be that pick.
[quote=“JBOMBER, post:340, topic:10289, full:true”]
OK, we’re never gunna agree if some here want to count players like Dempsey as an indication that we drafted mids. [/quote]
I went looking to see if my memory was wrong. Finding pre-draft reviews for Dempsey from 2005 are, um, hard. But I found this one from the big footy phantom:
Courtney Dempsey – Morningside – 186cm, 76kgs – Livewire midfielder/ forward.
Courtney is very highly regarded by numerous AFL clubs and was touted as a top10 pick mid way through the year. He is an Aboriginal livewire who has a lot of flair and tons of talent. He had a poor u18 Carnival which has meant he fell back in the rankings however he is not alone with Matthew Pavlich and Lance Franklin showing how little this means. Courtney needs to learn to play the full 100min, he certainly has the talent to make AFL level. Some people may be surprised that I went with another ‘small’ at this pick after picking similar types earlier in the draft however I feel that the Eagles list has a very even spread of your players already and we can afford to take risks on someone like Dempsey who will love the wide Subiaco oval, a bargain at pick 34. Other players I considered who Jon Cheetham (very raw KPP), Danny Stanley (a small backman, which would have been nice) and Daniel Dzufer.
And this from, well, here: http://footystats.freeservers.com/Daily/2005trading.html
COURTENAY DEMPSEY
No. 19 (Morningside) 18yo 184cm 68kg
Explosive midfielder in the Andrew Lovett mould, according to coach Kevin Sheedy. Represented Queensland and has excellent evasive skills. Originally from Cairns.
So you may not think of him as a midfielder now, but at draft time he was.
1 Like
Just to give my interpretation on our past. WARNING Long post coming!
Our past recruitment performance
I think since about 2006 EFC drafting has been above AFL average. I’m not sure how much above, as that would require detailed analysis of all clubs performances. But we seem to have converted a good number of picks into decent AFL players. The problem is, being “above average” but not really having any “outstanding” drafts is a bit of a problem. You can get around it like Hawthorn arguably did in 2004 to 2006 by just having so many picks, and so many top picks, that even if you stuff up Dowler & Thorpe, you still have both Roughead and Franklin. So if your drafting is going to be “above average”, to really challenge you need a lot of draft picks or top quality picks, and preferably both.
We didn’t have a plethora of picks as we mostly missed priority picks (one additional pick #20), have since had draft sanctions, and have consistently refused to trade out players of any value unless they are forcing our hands (in which case we generally get unders back). The one exception to that was 2002, where our hand was forced by our own salary cap stuff ups, and 2003 when we got #6 for Jacobs. We still got good picks those years, but of course 2002 is arguably the weakest draft in the last 20 years and 2003 would be a contender for second worst.
We did have some good picks, but the problem was they were either pushed back by others (Due to priority picks in 2005 [#4 became #7] and 2007 [#5 became #6] and academy pushed back picks in 2010 [#3 became #8] and 2011 [#10 became #19]), or by our refusal to really bottom out, meaning even in our “worst” period of 2005 to 2011 we got two top 5 picks (exacerbated by issues above) and finally by using decent picks and/or list spaces on short-term older players or failed trades.
Generally, I’d say our recruiting has been no better at turning picks into “elite” players than other clubs. This is exacerbated by the injuries to Pears and Gumby. Combine that with weaker/less plentiful picks, and it’s not good for finding an elite core.
So if you’re not going to get plentiful picks, or absolute golden top 3 picks, how do you build a premiership team? Well, luck with father sons. An absolutely exceptional draft (we’ve not really had one). The major other technique is to trade for under priced players.
In that, I’m in agreement with JBomber. We’ve been deplorable at it. Lots of guys who will contribute a year or two (Allan, Murphy, Camporeale, Chapman, Kelly, etc.) but when it comes to younger players, its miss miss miss. McPhee would be the best since 2000. Prismall, Cupido/McPhee, Cole and Edwards/Aylett all used third round or better picks on (or equivalent with Cupido/McPhee), for only one semi-win with McPhee is pretty deplorable. The picture gets no better when you look at elite talent, with only Goddard joining in, well, forever. The picture is ironically much better going the other way - Richards and Jenkins were huge steals for Sydney and Adelaide.
Despite all this, I do think we put together a pretty good list around about 2013/2014. One which would have been much better with luck around Rama/Winders/Laycock/Gumby/Belly on the injury front. But I don’t think it was a premiership winner - it could have made a grand final. But win one? A LOT of luck would have been required. And that comes back to not either having a plethora of picks, gilt edged picks, or some amazing trade bargains. Above average drafting with the picks we had got you close (plus luck with Watson F/S), but I doubt even without the saga we would have done it. Maybe if we’d traded/drafted brilliantly in 2013 and 2014.
I generally think the drafting strategy was fine. Take talls first as you rebuild, as they take longer and they’re rarer so if a good one is available grab them. Take mids later in the drafts. Then as that tall core builds, switch the focus to midfielders and peripheral players. We mostly did this concentrating on talls early across 2002 to 2008, and midfielders early from 2007 to 2011 (yes, I know there is overlap there). I’m not a fan of our trading strategy – or outcomes.
Where are we now?
So post that peak the list hit in about 2013 and 2014, where is it at now? Well, we lost key players for picks, so you could argue we “sold” assets. But that only replaced picks we lost to the saga. Also when some of those guys being lost are young (Carlisle, Melksham) or not particularly old (Hibberd, Ryder, Crameri), well that’s a problem for your list anyway. We’ve seemingly drafted reasonably well, although a lot of those players are unproven and there are a few potential duds there. So “above average”, but not “out of the ball park”. Some significant players such as Fletcher and Winders retired, and the core elite talent we had has all aged. We’ve used picks/list spots on trades and older players such as Edwards/Aylett, Chapman, Cooney, Gwilt, Giles, Kelly, Dea, Green, Leuy and Stewart. Many of those were either failures, temporary measures (again!) or are still to be determined.
The list is IMHO very dependant on the returning players and journeyman. If across the next 18 months we can get enough of the returnees to return to previous form, the list does cover most bases (especially if journeymen in the back get back to 2016 form and/or improve). We added some good draftees in 2016. But the midfield is a wreck, as the core of the 2013 side’s midfield (Stanton, Watson, Myers, Goddard, Hocking) are still being relied upon but not performing (Goddard aside). I don’t feel we are miles away with good coaching, and have no idea if Worsfold is good enough.
What would I do?
Well, I’d keep trying to win for the next 5-7 rounds with some tinkering to figure out exactly where the list is at. See how the returning players go, does the side start gelling. We should perform some experimentation. I would definitely try McKenna and Fantasia through the midfield. Depending on how the team performs over that period go into the second half of the year either trying to get the team to click, or in full development mode.
Whether it is this year or the future, we have to start getting trades done for under-priced talent. It is too glaring a hole in our list management. Zak Jones or someone of similar ilk for a second rounder would be ideal.
If the opportunity is there to grab a certified gold player in the 19 to 23 range (such as Kelly), then I’d lean towards going hard. But so much depends on the analysis of the team this year. We may be only a bit of gelling and a good one or two players (like Jones + Rockliff) away, or we may be miles.
If we are miles away, I’m going to be pretty upset. I said in 2015 to trade out some of our older assets, I said in 2016 that having some players go FA would be good for a rebuild. I said trade pick #1 (sorry McGrath) for multiple picks. The club chose not to rebuild, and if they do so now we don’t really have assets to get that set of picks you really need when filling multiple holes and needing elite talent. It will be a long long haul.
3 Likes
I think it needs extrapolating.
1 Like
Ha ha, … I will read it later though. Just love those pesky facts …
1 Like
This is the solution to our midfield woes. Tank and get this kid - may not need to tank
5 Likes
The other Fogarty Cameron Rayner in the draft is the pegs midfielder right?
LOCAL KID WSPHU
from 50s.
@Ants interesting post. I reckon you’re a bit negative though regarding
In my opinion the list is entirely dependent on the guys who will be taking us into the future. ie the guys who were growing together last year. The results this year may have been strongly influenced by the returning players and journeymen, but I feel that is a different thing.Some of those players will be part of the next major assault, but unless it all clicks this year a lot of them won’t.
In my opinion the core of the list is around Daniher, Zac Merrett, Fantasia, etc. It’s young, and growing, and a year or two away from maturing. While it matures the journeymen and returning players are hopefully filling the gaps to make us a contender even while the list isn’t mature, but give it a couple of years and the young core will be ready. (now there are holes in the young core that will need addressing longer term, but I’m assuming we get a few years out of some returning players in the meantime…)
So how do I see it? (yes, I will make this a best 22 thread for some point hypothetically 2-3 years into the future)
Gleeson Ambrose McNiece || Hartley is young and may command a spot. We’ll need to be looking to replace Hurley via the draft / trade soon, unless that’s Ridley. Gleeson is good enough overhead to play the zoning off intercept marking type. Not sure about the genuine lockdown, but I’ll stick McNiece there
McGrath Hurley McKenna || I’ve moved McGrath to HBF to provide drive. McKenna also providing run and ball use off HBF
Long Heppell Colyer || I think this speaks for itself in terms of what I hope to happen
Fantasia Daniher Laverde || This also speaks for itself generally.
Tippa Francis Begley || Conceptually a powerful FF, a powerful marking threat in the pocket and Tippa seems good to me. Obviously it depends on Begley and Francis making it
Leuenberger Z. Merrett Parish || Leuenberger is the #1 at the moment. Obviously I hope Draper becomes that, but otherwise we don’t have an “in 4 years” #1 ruck. Merrett and Parish with Heppell is a good combo.
I/C: Langford + 3 of (Morgan, Mutch, Clarke, Ridley, J. Merrett, Redman, Stewart, draftees 2017, 2018 + trades + anyone who hangs in for a couple of years, eg Zaharakis) || Langford the genuine utility, expecting to play midfield minutes, but can fill in everywhere. Mutch/Redman/Morgan/Clarke all midfield options. J. Merrett may yet make a career as a role player and would still be in his prime in 3 years, but I wouldn’t be relying on that…More likely Zaharakis, Bird, Brown, Dea, Hooker, Myers still going around
I guess my point. There’s a few in there that may be wishful or a stretch, but there’s a quality core that’s already there for the future. This is what our list is relying on. We need to keep developing that core, even if it’s at the expense of the older guys, because in 2 years that core is all we’ll have.
I have faith that that will be OK. Obviously adding quality by trade and draft over the next 2 years will help that, but we’re not in a diabolical position otherwise. (and I accept I have more faith in McKenna, Long and Gleeson than pretty much anyone here…)
Anyway, it’s clear to me that I should be doing assignments. But this was a solid distraction…
Yeah he is. He looks good.
It appears there’s some good ball winning mids in this draft.
[quote=“frosty, post:355, topic:10289, full:true”]
@Ants interesting post. I reckon you’re a bit negative though regarding
In my opinion the list is entirely dependent on the guys who will be taking us into the future. ie the guys who were growing together last year. The results this year may have been strongly influenced by the returning players and journeymen, but I feel that is a different thing.Some of those players will be part of the next major assault, but unless it all clicks this year a lot of them won’t.
In my opinion the core of the list is around Daniher, Zac Merrett, Fantasia, etc. It’s young, and growing, and a year or two away from maturing. While it matures the journeymen and returning players are hopefully filling the gaps to make us a contender even while the list isn’t mature, but give it a couple of years and the young core will be ready. (now there are holes in the young core that will need addressing longer term, but I’m assuming we get a few years out of some returning players in the meantime…)[/quote]
I probably was missing a word there. I really meant more list strategy, than just “the list”. The younger players are of course vitally important, and that will only become more important going forward as the older players retire. I kind of see two scenarios:
- Scenario A: The small glimpses we’ve seen of good play become more prevalent. Our forward line keeps working efficiently. One of Watson/Myers rediscovers their best (or in Watson’s case, say 2014) form, and one of Belly/Stanton rediscover their best form. We become a pretty good side, albeit likely only for the last 6-7 rounds of the year.
- Scenario B: It becomes clear that most of Watson, Stanton, Hocking, Kelly, Goddard, Bags are going to be finished at the end of either 2017 or 2018, with a significant clean out. That Myers and Belly are just journeyman (Howlett always was), and that we won’t get a huge amount of those three and Bird. So effectively we’re totally reliant on the younger generation to take us forward.
If it turns out Scenario A is what is unfolding, then our list strategy may be aimed at filling holes. The proposed (but highly unlikely!) Z. Jones/Rockliff combination would be something to aim for, and we might be a chance in 2018 and 2019.
But if scenario B is true I think we need to take a longer term view. We have a good core - but so do Melbourne and St Kilda. If we are concentrating on that group we need to take a 3-4 year view, so that (hopefully) a group of the 2016 draftees can reach 21/22 years of age and 50+ games. Those guys will *turn 22 in 2020. By the end of 2020 McGrath will (injuries aside) be around 90 games, but players slower to earn games or with injury bouts will probably be on around 50 games (at season end).
If Scenario B is the reality, then it means we need to make some harsh calls. What I’d be doing is:
- I would be phasing out most (if not all) of Kelly, Stanton, Watson, Bags, Goddard, Bird, Howlett and Hocking over 2017 and 2018. Myers three year contract means for better or worse (hopefully better as age wise he’s not bad) he’s staying on the list.
- I would try and trade Hooker - he is turning 30 next season, and if he kicks 40+ this year has value. But if we’re not challenging until 2021, he’ll be 33. Better to get picks now and try and start finding Hooker’s successor at full forward than be having to do that at the start of a challenge.
- Only trade in players if they’re under 23. Try and get under-priced players like most premiership teams have. Especially target the Doggies and northern clubs.
- Focus on development in 2018, even if it costs wins. Hopefully (in this scenario) we get good draft picks in 2017 and 2018 to further build the side.
- Make a call on Zaharakis. He is young enough to be a contributor in 2021+, but if we can get something good for him I’d roll the dice on drafting someone better. Is a FA so all depends on what other clubs would offer contract wise.
- Recognise our main rucks will all be done by 2021, so start focussing on where to get a good young ruck who can step in at the end of 2018.
That scenario is painful as it means we’re not really chasing finals until about 2019, fifteen years after we won our last one. But like it or not, it will mean our list peaked in 2013/14, and the saga cost us a chance, and we have to rebuild. Something the club has traditionally refused to do in a hard core way.
[quote=“frosty, post:355, topic:10289, full:true”]So how do I see it? (yes, I will make this a best 22 thread for some point hypothetically 2-3 years into the future)
Gleeson Ambrose McNiece || Hartley is young and may command a spot. We’ll need to be looking to replace Hurley via the draft / trade soon, unless that’s Ridley. Gleeson is good enough overhead to play the zoning off intercept marking type. Not sure about the genuine lockdown, but I’ll stick McNiece there
McGrath Hurley McKenna || I’ve moved McGrath to HBF to provide drive. McKenna also providing run and ball use off HBF
Long Heppell Colyer || I think this speaks for itself in terms of what I hope to happen
Fantasia Daniher Laverde || This also speaks for itself generally.
Tippa Francis Begley || Conceptually a powerful FF, a powerful marking threat in the pocket and Tippa seems good to me. Obviously it depends on Begley and Francis making it
Leuenberger Z. Merrett Parish || Leuenberger is the #1 at the moment. Obviously I hope Draper becomes that, but otherwise we don’t have an “in 4 years” #1 ruck. Merrett and Parish with Heppell is a good combo.
I/C: Langford + 3 of (Morgan, Mutch, Clarke, Ridley, J. Merrett, Redman, Stewart, draftees 2017, 2018 + trades + anyone who hangs in for a couple of years, eg Zaharakis) || Langford the genuine utility, expecting to play midfield minutes, but can fill in everywhere. Mutch/Redman/Morgan/Clarke all midfield options. J. Merrett may yet make a career as a role player and would still be in his prime in 3 years, but I wouldn’t be relying on that…More likely Zaharakis, Bird, Brown, Dea, Hooker, Myers still going around
I guess my point. There’s a few in there that may be wishful or a stretch, but there’s a quality core that’s already there for the future. This is what our list is relying on. We need to keep developing that core, even if it’s at the expense of the older guys, because in 2 years that core is all we’ll have.
I have faith that that will be OK. Obviously adding quality by trade and draft over the next 2 years will help that, but we’re not in a diabolical position otherwise. (and I accept I have more faith in McKenna, Long and Gleeson than pretty much anyone here…)[/quote]
I find that team full of optimism. A number of players are closer to being delisted than making it (Long, Morgan, Jerrett, Gleeson?) and so many others are totally unproven (McKenna, McNiece, Laverde, Begley, Langford, Redman, Clarke, Ridley, Stewart), that putting that team up is just a list of our younger players. Some will make it, some won’t, and some almost definitely wont.
[quote=“frosty, post:355, topic:10289, full:true”]Anyway, it’s clear to me that I should be doing assignments. But this was a solid distraction…
[/quote]
I know that feeling. Few years ago now though!
1 Like
Optimistic. Absolutely. And some define won’t make, and others might. I’m basing it on what I’ve seen of players, and projected them into roles that I’d like them to okay in a perfect world (and assuming the game plan is what it is).
As for your scenario, I’m happy to phase out the mature guys, but any scenario that involves trading Hooker is straight out craziness. We need to be build a winning culture. But it has to bring the players along with it. We’ve been down the path of ignoring the players while trying to win, and it hasn’t worked.
After 20+ years I’m trying to fit post grad study in with “life” and sometimes finding it challenging!
Last night ag. Cats, our mids did a great job in general play, but got smashed at centre clearances.
What needs fixing?
(I note that mid-coach Bluey was a HBFer).
Pretty much the I50 differential is the same as the centre clearance differential. It definitely needs a lot of work. Getting beaten there every week.