Does anybody know what actually happened with Steinberg in 2012? Got re-signed midway through the year, then a few months later is delisted with a promise of being picked back up as a rookie. No rumours of attitude or discipline problems as far as I know.
We then nominate a similar player as a F/S rookie in Tom Fields. Come the draft we fill Steinberg's spot with a similar player in Van Unen and the most speculative of speculative tall defenders in Gregory with the last live pick. The rookie draft rolls around, we pick up Steinberg as promised and not Fields because there's no room for him.
Steinberg was recontracted at this time last year then a few weeks later rookied.
I would delist him, Hal and promote Lachie and Dell...Get rid of Jetta and Davey
We need to find another ruck option on the rookie list.
Steinberg needs to play forward again if he wants to stay...maybe the year in defence was to show him how forwards work?? no real idea...its not like we need more defenders right now. Pears is a way better player.
Keep in mind that with hilley retired, we will have an extra rookie spot. Two if fletch wasn't to pull on the boots for season 63. That would give us a little more flexibility.
BUT, because I don't think we have anyone else eligible for a veteran's spot, this has an impact in terms of the senior list. We actually need to cut it from 40 down to 39 (hille) or 38(fletch). So for us in reality, unless a retirement and rookie pick combo counts towards the minimum of 3 senior list changes needed, we need to axe/trade at least four.
The result of this is that we might prefer someone -who otherwise deserve upgrading - to stay on the rookie list. It also puts more pressure on Davis, Browne etc.
Are all the statements you're making about the rules re: lists true? They are not in keeping with what I thought were the rules, though my knowledge of the rules are average too. Dunlop, confirm?
And Peos that thread wasn't mine.
I think Dalgliesh showed a bit, but I'm not as bullish as the rest. I still think he may be worth an upgrade though.
Are all the statements you're making about the rules re: lists true? They are not in keeping with what I thought were the rules, though my knowledge of the rules are average too. Dunlop, confirm?
The previous Veterans‘ List allowance has been replaced with clubs now granted a salary cap allowance for players with 10 completed years or more with the club.
There is no longer an age requirement of 30 years.
The amount of the allowance has been calculated as a fixed percentage of Total Player Payments (TPP) per player based on the average amount of football payments excluded from the TPP for players on the Veterans‘ List for seasons 2007-09, divided by the average number of players with 10 or more years‘ service at one club during that period.
The fixed percentage has been set at 1.229 per cent and the allowance per player in 2013 is $112,320.
Veterans‘ Transition
The new Veterans‘ Rule started on November 1, 2012.
For TPP purposes, a club can continue operating under the old Veterans‘ Rule if the club has a player who qualifies as a veteran during the term of his current contract and whose current contract exists before November 1, 2011.
When a club no longer has a relevant veteran player on its list, or if a club decides by notifying the AFL, the club will change to the new Veterans‘ Rule.
A club cannot operate under both rules at once and when a club has changed to the new Veterans‘ Rule, they will move permanently to that rule.
Can't say that I fully follow their method of calculation, could they have worded it more poorly?
Surprising to me how similar they are, as I would have thought that Kommer had much more of the ball than Dell or Leroy, and that Alwyn would have more tackles. Stats can be misleading, but not much between them it seems.
I think that's the next step for Kommer. Needs to get more of the pill. Add in the pressure and tackling he already has, he will be the most dangerous out of those four next year IMO.
Stat averages for the Kommer/Jetta/Davey sort of player are basically useless now - all of these guys played sub so often that it messes up the statistical comparison. Davey might have played 14 games, but how many of those did he play only a half or less? Stuffs the averages.
Steinberg needs to play forward again if he wants to stay...maybe the year in defence was to show him how forwards work?? no real idea...its not like we need more defenders right now. Pears is a way better player.
Certainly in his first couple of years Pears was a better player but on this year's form Steinberg wouldn't be far behind. Due to a lack of alternatives at VFL level he has frequently had to line up on much bigger players and usually more than held his own. I'd like to see him get another year on the list or as a rookie (if that's an option). His disposal also seems to have markedly improved.
We’re going to get better players if we get them in earlier. Ie on the main list, not rookies.
I’m not sure if that makes a difference in the real world, but you’re better off getting the 90th best kid with the last pick in the main draft, than the 130th best with a 3rd round rookie pick.
From that perspective, makes some sense (if you can) to Delist a main list guy and rookie them. Not sure if that thinking came into play with the Steinberg machinations, but it could well do this year.
I'm really fascinated to see if Stein's demotion was just a contract/list management blunder being corrected or if they really were just giving him one last go.
Stein was signed much earlier in 2012 than the announcement date. probably played at least half the season with a contract done for 2013. it's not true that we signed him in september and demoted in october. FWIW.
and thank's for posting the new Vet's rule. I hadn't realised that the old system could be phased out at the clubs wishes. not that it matters, Fletch is on a year by year deal so I guess we're now on the new system even if he stays. Total list numbers are still capped at 44 though, so i assume if you nominate 6 Ten-year players, you have no rookie spots free?
Back on topic, Dalgleish was more impressive at senior level than most of his VFL games. funny how it works. different strengths are suited to bigger grounds, perhaps. he carried the footy more regularly at AFL, which we'd been wanting to see more of in the reserves.
Ariel has become a really solid, dependable footballer. Whether thats enough given limited list places, i'm not sure.
Steinberg's last two games were his worst of the year.
He's otherwise been clearly better than Dalgleish this year. I agree Dalgleish seems to have decided he needs to flaunt his obvious weapon (pace) at AFL level to stay there — and it's worked out alright, he hasn't been caught out because of it.
Given Steinberg has never escaped full-back, and was not cut along with Davis and Hunter today, I really don't know what they're thinking.
My memory of the VFL reports while both Pears and Steinberg were playing was that Steinberg more often took the tall forward than Pears, and he seemed to edge him in the bests. Although maybe not so much in the few weeks before Pears returned to the AFL side. Is this accurate, or am I remembering with rose coloured glasses?
I'm just wondering if other than Hurley & Fletcher, Steinberg is the most natural back up for Hooker and Carlisle? Obviously being shorter and not as good as either.
When Pears and Steinberg played together, Pears got more disposals. In his absence, Steinberg got busier (no, I haven't checked the stats). Suspect there was some instruction/role-playing in that.
Steinberg is almost certainly not a direct back-up for Hooker and Carlisle. Yes, he has been very good at playing on guys bigger than himself, but the quality of AFL and VFL monsters differs widely. We moan about Pears not being big enough, and Steinberg is a tad smaller than Pears.
Mind you, you'll never know if all he ever does is play full-back in the VFL.
Wasn't happy when we picked him up (was hoping for Luke Parker or Mitch Hallahan and they were both available when we took Steinberg) and didn't rate him when he was on our main list but I've been turned around on him this year. Felt like every time I saw him playing for Bendigo in his first couple of years he pulled out one nice moment a game and then spent the rest of his time getting into the wrong positions, failing to stick tackles or chase and flying for ridiculous pack marks about 3 or 4 seconds before the ball arrived. The improvement in his 'game awareness' has been really obvious this year and he has shown a really solid commitment to his tasks throughout the year. Ultimately his fate does appear to be somewhat reliant on what other moves are made but certainly would retain him as a rookie for 2014.
Hunter's gone. Dalgleish looks pretty likely to upgraded.
And then there is Dell.
I really like him but I'm not sure if that opinion has much relationship to his exposed performance. For a guy who looks a class above VFL standard during half a dozen passages of play each game he doesn't dominate as he should consistently enough. You see a lot of questions about his pace but my bigger concern is that he doesn't seem judge the ball off the pack or off a marking a contest as well as you would hope. I felt like there wasn't enough times this season where he was slotting goals that had come off the hands of Joey or Gumby charging out for a mark. What he does often do really well is read the play up the ground and judge the ball in the air better than his opponent on a consistent basis. I hope we do keep him because I have a soft spot for him and there is parts of his game that I love but I worry that Dell may continue our tradition over the past few years of constructing a forward line of tall guys that run to the wrong places and small guys who are looking for the ball on the lead.