He tried to but he couldn’t understand the name.
Craw! Not Craw, CRAW!!!
Snelling won’t be cut and neither will Zaharakis
1 Like
Theirs one change we need to make before all else. Sack Dodorro!!!
2 Likes
Mutch
Begley
McKenna (home)
Smack
Bellchambers
Townsend
Cutler
Hibberred
Laverde
Clarke
#skin of their teeth 1x more yr
Crauford>> Not sure just have no idea bar a couple goals in a scrathch match
Fantasia trade>> if a suitable swap to fill another need/gain access to a draft pick of worth.
Those other 2 x Irish boys?? Dont know what they club think, are they 1/2 year propositions?
That’s what Id look at.
The only way we could do that is if the AFL change the rules so that paying out contracts doesn’t go onto the following years cap. Unless we convince the AFL that allowing us to do that will benefit their interests then I can’t see it happening.
1 Like
I’m surprised sportbet are not running a betting scam on that.
Where are people getting this 7 player drop from? Nothing that I can find has been confirmed regarding the drop, people have speculated but AFL has not confirmed and also it’s not necessarily happening over period of one year only.
List sizes are one of the AFL’s hottest topics but there’s also a lot misunderstood about what any changes would mean
Apr 16, 2020, 5:03pm
There’s still a bit to clear up on what smaller list sizes would mean for clubs. Picture: AFL Photos
THERE’S been at least two common misconceptions in the ongoing discussion around playing list sizes.
The first was the baseless belief there was going to be a reduction as soon as the 2020 season.
LATEST NEWS All your COVID-19 updates here
We’ve seen footballers’ contract terms renegotiated in these coronavirus times but turfing contracts altogether, especially en masse, would be a whole different matter.
AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan finally put that one to bed on Thursday.
“For reasons I think are obvious (financial); all aspects of football are under review going forward – and list sizes have come up,” McLachlan said.
“I have no information that will have an impact this year.”
The second is the fear around player job losses.
The average list size is about 45 or 46, factoring in the variation in rookies.
No set number per club is in place for if a reduction occurs but 35 has become a popular speculative figure, which would translate to a minimum of 180 fewer listed AFL footballers.
Some believe lists could be cut to 35 by as soon as next season but it may also be a more gradual process, given it would be so significant and with the complication of contracts beyond 2020.
However, that doesn’t mean there won’t still be bulk playing opportunities outside of those officially listed, as will be explained below.
Again, as McLachlan said mid-week: “There are not less jobs – there is just a different configuration to put your list together. I think that’s a better way of looking at it.”
Everyone accepts injuries are a major part of the game, and the number of them differs by team each season.
Every club bar Geelong, West Coast, Western Bulldogs and Hawthorn used 35 or more footballers at senior level last season – and they still sent out 34 players each.
St Kilda and Melbourne had the most with 39 apiece.
North Melbourne in 2018 and Adelaide in 2017 both used only 31 footballers but the 2018 Saints’ and 2017 Suns’ corresponding figures were 41 and 42.
There are two points here: there will be opportunities beyond a list of 35 (if that’s how it ends up), and there is a necessity for the AFL to create a system whereby top-up players can easily be signed.
The idea list bosses are favouring, as AFL.com.au revealed in March, is a United States-style waiver system, based on reverse ladder order, that would enable players to be snapped up on a weekly basis.
That process is superior to, for instance, a mid-season draft, in that coaches and recruiters could fill a specific need at any time, rather than having to wait or just selecting the best player available.
The other matter is the one coaches such as the Bulldogs’ Luke Beveridge have raised: the need for a certain number of players for match simulation training during the week.
That’s why AFL.com.au understands the people entrusted with the list sizes thinktank are weighing up whether AFLW rules could work in the potential new AFL world.
SMALLER LIST SIZES? How it will look
In the AFLW, where clubs have lists of 30, each team also has up to 10 ‘train-on’ players who can take part in match simulation training once a week.
The conditions can change because of injuries or other long-term unavailability, enabling those footballers to attend every session, although still being eligible only to train.
Train-on AFLW players can eventually become replacement players once a club is down to fewer than 23 fit footballers (21 play in a match).
The AFL Players’ Association and player agents justifiably want to see the AFL’s books before agreeing to any salary cap and/or list size reduction.
AFLPA boss Paul Marsh has repeatedly stated his organisation must agree before any of this goes forward.
At the same time, he’s also said several times that the AFLPA’s job isn’t to “maximise player contracts” but rather establish “the right number”.
In these unforeseen and dire circumstances, less appears to be the right number – but understanding that ‘less’ largely just means ‘different’ is at the core of this debate.
1 Like
Agreed…it’s all just a knock-on impact of reduced list sizes…but if that number 40 is correct, then IMO it invalidates past contracting decisions…so I think the AFL should create a mechanism for early payouts to be at least partially outside the cap.
I also think there would be some tough conversations with fringe players, basically saying “You are going to have to accept a rock bottom contract for 2021 just to keep your hope alive of an AFL career for 2022 onwards. And if you don’t accept these terms, you will be an unemployed sportsman, entering an economy awash with unemployed people.”
1 Like
I know people love the delist fkn everyone route but it won’t happen.
We are still moving to be pressing hard to do damage next year and mature experienced bodies as depth will still be required especially in structurally important areas
I don’t think Smack will be delisted. Been a heap of fwds even the stars really struggle in QLD with the greasy night conditions and he’s certainly been one, and also never had chance to play along side Daniher & Stringer together. He is more than capable on his day. I think he will be retained at least another year.
In part because JD and Stewart can’t be solely relied on. And in part because Crauford might be an up and comer but also proven nothing yet. Neither has Jones who is still a skinny rake.
Lav will be retained, only 24, when fit can contribute well as depth. Hibberd who is only a rookie anyway whilst didn’t set world on fire did have a crack and got progressively better once used to tempo
As the likely definite outs IMO…
Begley (meh)
Mutch (also meh)
Cutler (shame as has the physical attributes but is soft as butter)
Gown (going early but don’t see him making it or being competent depth, in between size with poor work rate/doesn’t get involved enough)
Bellchambers to retire
McKenna back to Ireland
Then there is the maybes
Raz (trade?)
Francis (trade?)
Townsend ?
That’s about as far as I’d see it going. If list sizes cut back to 40 (more conservative gradual drop), that would still leave us 5 senior spots… perhaps 2 as incoming trade/FA/DFA and 3 at the ND
McBride perhaps shifted to primary rookie list so he can be used and McQuillan switched back to CatB with Hird.
5 Likes
Smack and Townsend will not take us forward they are list cloggers. Give opportunities to others.
3 Likes
Yep, retaining Smack over Gown makes no sense.
Smack barely stayed on the list in years when he showed a lot more than this year. If Daniher and Stewart stay and Hooker plays out his contract (should only be used next year as a back-up imo), then there is no reason to keep him. If injuries hit then it’s time for youngsters to get trialled.
1 Like
Don’t think many would agree that Smack should be retained beyond this season
3 Likes
Time will tell
To go and get some experienced mature depth options that are better you really are going to need to be giving them the lure of guaranteed game time
As an example. Peter Wright or Tom McDonald.
They’ll also cost a lot more than Smack will salary wise. Don’t know game plan etc
2 Likes
There’s a game plan to learn? Well, fmd.
7 Likes
You’re absolutely dreaming Speedy. There is no way Smack stays on the list
Dodoro: “Hold my beer.”
He’s the most obvious delisting on the entire list.
We’ve squeezed out every last drop.
2 Likes
Anyone else think that if we get through the rest of the season unscathed injury-wise, especially Hepp and Joe, then it’s a promising start for the new fitness guy and we go into the offseason in reasonable shape fitness wise?
1 Like
There is about two-thirds of the list of players that are out of contract, that I wouldn’t care if we delisted.
Then there are a few others who are still in contract who should be moved on also.