I think the way the cats actually conduct trades is good (albeit they’ve had some advantages), but yeah I wouldn’t be going the “trade in all the players” route.
The Cats model and the Hawthorn models are partly furphies. Ahead of their first premierships both sides only really made small trades, with one or two exceptions (Ottens, Croad kind of).
They then went on trading sprees to stay up the top. Hawthorn was very good at identifying players about to develop (contrary to the article, Gibson and Gunston were not big trades at the time of the trade), but both teams stayed in finals due to the trades.
None of that necessarily holds for teams who do not have the cachet of being a premiership team.
That said, I do think EFC needs to improve at identifying under-valued players. Hopefully Stewart was a step in the right direction.
Their methods good.
their plans stupid.
An interesting analysis on The Drill podcast is that Sydney’s main gameplan is to win 1:1 contests. All they need to do is get a player to win contested marks, win contested ball, then tell them to man up an opponent. That’s a relatively easy thing to teach a new player. It’s probably why they are so successful at bringing in fringe players from other clubs, they don’t over complicate things. End result is they win an absurd majority of 1:1 contests.
They can recruit a Shaun Edwards who struggles to fit into a large complex gameplan. All they’d need from Shawney is to win his own contests. Chances are he won’t get there, but it’s a better chance than. Him learning all the details of our gameplan.
Compare that to our attacking gameplan this year. We’ve been great at team attack, but below average in contests around the ground. If the team gameplan works well, it’s probably superior to Sydney. The problem is we aren’t competing 1:1 well enough when we screw up the gameplan. And we tend to screw up the gameplan at least 1 quarter each game.
So here’s the question. If Sydney can teach strong 1:1 skills and make below average players look great, why can’t we? I don’t see that element of our game as drafting, it’s development and culture.
Hooker is one of the best contested marks in the game, but is famous for not being an elite athlete such as Buddy. He does it through smarts, experience and attitude. That’s all coachable. If we’d traded him out for 2 x 2nd round picks before he broke out, he’d look like a failed draft pick. It’s because he’s developed successfully that Dodoro looks to have drafted well.
I’ve only focused on a small piece of the puzzle, but it’s a piece I think was critical in our finals loss. It’s a piece I think can be remedied in coaching, not at the draft table.
This is a very good point, and exactly the types we should be chasing, players around the 21, 22 mark who have either been starved of opportunity at there club. Or players we think are developing well and can find a place for. A “big fish” would be nice but if we cant land one its not the end of the world. Have a look at lists that have mids that bat deep, there must be some kids that are good enough that cant get a game at these clubs. GWS the obvious one but what other clubs, and players could be a target? Collingwood has more mids then you can poke a stick at, but I am unsure if anyone there gettable or decent.
3aw just said Adam Saad from the GoldCoast is on the table for next yr! Forget stringer and co , this bloke would be a great pick up for us
I can’t remember se eing shaunye winning a 1on1 in his career ever.
I know the club were looking into him lsst year
No idea how deep conversations went, if any at all
We are losing Kelly and moving McGrath to midfield most likely so absolutely we need to look at some HBF options.
who needs to win a one on one contest when you can just goosestep past them
Matthew Scarlett thought Jake Stringer was doing well as a HBF a couple of years ago.
Saw him goosestep heaps in the vfl then get burried into the ground or turnover the ball after being an idiot.
It must also be noted that the type of gameplan and strategy you speak of works to there strengths as a side.
It also is supported by the small ■■■■■■ SCG.
If they had that gameplan at the MCG or Subiaco it wouldn’t work (across 22 games at least …too many open spaces
I don’t know how complex our gameplan is (I suspect its just as complex as any other). But I can tell you right now that there is a lot more to Sydneys gameplan than what has been outlined in that post, it is far from simple. I have a family friend who plays for the Swans, and he tells us that one of the hardest parts of being an AFL footballer is learning the complexity’s of the game plan. He also said some players with a lot of talent don’t make it just because they struggle to learn the game plan, and therefore can’t play the exact role required by the coach.
Fair enough and interesting to hear the other side. Happy to admit I’ve oversimplified their gameplan. I do see individual contests as the core to the Sydney brand. It’s what they’ve instilled in their players for years. I don’t see their 22 having any drastic natural advantage over our 22, it’s how they’ve been programmed to play.
100% agree it’s designed for the scg. You could see that in their last failed premiership attempt on the MCG.
A good enough gameplan can minimise their strengths. Ours may be able to do it if implemented well. Or our gameplan may simply be too fragile when pressured.
Dudoro just do something!
We once again are getting no one good.
So Sheedy interfering with Judkins = flag & possibly best side ever but Sheedy interfering with Dodoro means rapid decline, GF to out of the 8 in 4 years & no finals wins since yet you & some others who share your lack of logic equate that as Sheedy was the problem not Dodoro. Seriously just let that sink in for a moment.
Am I reading you correctly, you don’t think Geelong during that period may have drafted a little better? Let me do the work for you even though you will simply ignore it. Geelong drafted 35 kids during the same period we drafted 39. They only had 6 top 20 picks as opposed to our 13 & 11 picks in the 20’s & 30’s (again as opposed to our 13). Yet they somehow managed to draft players like Bartel, Johnson, Hunt, Mackie, Lonergan, Selwood, Varcoe, Stokes & Taylor. More than half their 2009 premiership team was added during this period. Isn’t it possible they drafted better than we did? You seem incapable of making the connection between drafting poor players & onfield failure but surely some part of you must be able to see that drafting talented players is a crucial part of success. Again, if not then why defend Dodoro when he’s not responsible for anything & has done nothing but been ignored for 19 years???
You can’t simply ignore the list of names because it utterly destroys your position. Facts are facts, we didn’t draft enough quality players to maintain top 8 finishes or effectively re-build the side in spite of the fact that when Dodoro arrived he was handed the best list in the league. So what other than Dodoro changed in 1999? We know that Sheedy in his meddling ways had been succesful so if it wasn’t Dodoro & his list work post 1999 then what else was different? Did we lose the only effective piece of equipment in the Windy hill gym? Did we suddenly stop developing players & instead put all our resources into making the recruiters life impossible? Did Sheedy cop a knock on the head during the 2000 season & this made his interference less effective?
You make excuses like “we kept average player” with again showing no awareness that Dodoro was a part of those very decisions. They were ordinary players because he chose ordinary players. You can’t separate the fact that we had ordinary players from the person who was responsible for bringing them to the club. We didn’t keep ordinary players because it was the board’s decision to keep ordinary players, we didn’t have better players to replace them. Again we drafted 39 kids - thats nearly a full list turnover, this should have been enough to not have to keep the ordinary ones. Problem was when we got so few players up to standard from the 2000-2003 drafts we really had little to no choice but to keep some & to top up with recycled players. We didn’t trade in anyone in 2000 or 2001 & in 2002 we traded in Cupido who was still young & the best trade in Dodoro’s reign - McPhee. It was only when by 2003 & we had only 1 regular senior player from the previous 4 drafts & 1 rookie that we started dabbling in top ups. Even then to suggest that they were a significant factor is just moronic. We picked up Zantuck for pick 6 in the 2005 pre-season draft & he played 9 games. We also picked up Andrew Lee for pick 30 in the national draft that same year - he played 5 games.
I really am starting to wonder if you believe what you type or if you’ve backed yourself into a corner now & won’t admit the obvious. Can you not see that when we picked up Ty Zantuck that didn’t make Richmonds decision to draft him years earlier any less of a failure. Adelaide gave Tambling a second shot FFS, that doesn’t mean Richmond didn’t monumentally fark up in picking him in the 2004 draft. Other clubs rating a players talent before they’ve actually been at their club doesn’t mean the talent is there or that it can be developed into a senior player of any note. I’ve never suggested we’re the only club to have made mistakes. We may have picked Tambling as well if we’d had the same pick, other clubs may have as well - that doesn’t make that decision right. The point is you can’t use the excuse that Dodoro drafted enough talent but it was other factors that caused them to fail with us when there is simply no evidence to support that idea. With so many of our discards getting another shot, poor development being a significant factor for us would have shown up with players blossoming elsewhere. Again no other club was able to turn these guys around so its fair to say maybe possibly some of them might just have been poor picks.
Just a reminder - this is the props to Dodoro thread so at least somebody here acknowledges that he’s responsible for something. If you don’t want him to own his draft & trade records then close this thread & give him no credence even if this list wins the flag next year. If he’s not part of the reason we’ve failed for 13 years then he can’t possibly be part of the reason for anything that goes right either.