Depth.

Is it such a valuable asset as so many claim?

I think this week gives a great insight into how crowing that having good depth is pointless. With Bate, Dunn, Warnock, Maric, and Petterd out for 4 talented kids with potential to be anything (great or small).

And don't think - depth is valuable because what if structurally important players get injured?

I always come back to the axiom - You cannot relace your best players.

Garland goes down and Warnock is where? Is he fulfilling his position as 'good depth?'

So depth is good for the players at the margins?

Maybe so, but I would ask why anyone would care about shuffling the 'pawns.' (If I can use chess pieces as a metaphor)

No player should be kept as 'depth,' if you do not see them becoming regulars in the 22 then move them on for someone who may improve your team in the long run.

Player lists must be filled and you really have two types of players who are valuable, those who are always in your best 22 and youngsters pushing through staking a claim, showing promise but just aren't quite there yet.

Every club has so called depth and fringe players. They remain at clubs because no one else wants them, if they are good enough they get a gig elsewhere e.g. Jolly to Sydney.

Additionally there are only a certain amount of players you can cull each season, if you slash too much you may end with an unbalanced lists, i'm sure this is the reason Newton hangs around.

But I am with you, Newton would be considered depth at best. And if I read your post correctly, if a tall goes down you would much rather pump games into Cook or MacDonald regardless of their "readiness"??? Well I am with you there.

I think the transition we are in is flipping players from regular 22 pool into the extra/depth pool more quickly than we imagined. This is forcing us to move quicker in redefining who is in which pool than we would have liked.

Unfortunately it's been because those previously fringe regular 22 players have been unable to adapt to the requirements of Baileys plan or apply the defensive pressure in the forward line that all teams must apply.

The extra/depth pool is now made up of languishing players who have had a chance and young development players whose time will come. The cull at the end of the year will focus on the former group.

Edited June 3, 201114 yr by PaulRB

Depth.

Is it such a valuable asset as so many claim?

It is if the players lingering just below selection are indeed not that far off the pace.Also applies if the 'next picks" are up and comers who might be ok but for want of experience etc. Where we often fall down is often our 2nd and 3rd options are a level below and dont really maintain the quality in the mix, they dilute it.

Depth is a necessity...its the notion of quality !!

And if I read your post correctly, if a tall goes down you would much rather pump games into Cook or MacDonald regardless of their "readiness"??? Well I am with you there.

This is the logical step I wanted people to take.

Why keep 24-26 year olds as 'depth?'

Either they fulfill a small role you could have given to a kid, or they don't fuilfill a role left by a top player that could have been valuable experience for a kid.

Just don't see the value.

Often the depth players get a hard mark. If a kid played as well as Joel Macdonald did last week (despite the flaws) we'd be praising them, instead we are saying, oh he was ok he can have another week.

The 24+ year olds are also better trainers, better leaders and have less injuries.

In a perfect world your depth players would all be young and improving, but still good enough to get the job done.

We have depth in that we have about 6 or so players that are interchangeable in & out of our side, and we don't really lose much depending on who is in or out.

This would only be "good depth" if we were a top 4 contender.

As it is, we have a bunch of players we can bring in and we remain a middle-of-the-road / poor team.

Correction: we are losing quite a bit.

Ergo, we actually have poor depth.

The illusion of "good depth" I think, comes from having surplus players who are capable of performing the same role, but clearly not to the same level of quality.

Edited June 3, 201114 yr by Artie Bucco

Depth is important to teams that expect to be in the premiership race. If you're aiming for top 4 then you need depth.

Why? Because you already have the star players that can get you to the top, but you don't want to finish 6th just because you had a bad run of injuries in the middle of the season that caused you to drop a few games.

For a team like us depth isn't that important. The most important part they play is to help protect some of the younger bodies while they develop.

Depth is important to teams that expect to be in the premiership race. If you're aiming for top 4 then you need depth.

Why? Because you already have the star players that can get you to the top, but you don't want to finish 6th just because you had a bad run of injuries in the middle of the season that caused you to drop a few games.

For a team like us depth isn't that important. The most important part they play is to help protect some of the younger bodies while they develop.

How can they protect them if they are depth?

If they are 'protecting' them, they are playing, if they are playing then they are not depth or those who they are protecting are injured.

How can they protect them if they are depth?

If they are 'protecting' them, they are playing, if they are playing then they are not depth or those who they are protecting are injured.

They are still depth, depth is claiming that the player coming in CAN fill the void, depth isnt meant to describe a whole list of non-22, depth is a group of players who can cover injuries, but in our case we have so many we are going beyond depth into "fringe" players etc

As stated depth will help top sides not developing sides, as you say we play kids when injuries come

The same way that Joel Macdonald has come in to give strength to our backline, which stops the kids getting smashed around.

It's also the same at Casey, where senior players help out the younger ones with leadership and also use their big bodies to protect them. This doesn't have to be in a melee sort of way, but it is as simple as Warnock being able to take the opposition's biggest forward, allowing Davis to play on the second best. Or the biggest, meanest defender going to Bate, rather than Cook. It gives the kids more freedom and confidence to play.

Depth players are BEYOND fringe players.

Fringe implies they are in & out of the side.

Depth implies they are out of the side unless needed to fill holes through absence of others.

Depth is important, but it's far less important than having a strong group of core players, stars, etc. It's also less important when you're a developing side - it's not such a big deal if you have a few injuries and your team hurts a bit because of it.

No player should be kept as 'depth,' if you do not see them becoming regulars in the 22 then move them on for someone who may improve your team in the long run.

Indeed. I'd hope this is pretty obvious. The only exception I'd make is when you're 'in the window' you might want to hang on to players who are just outside the 22, even if they don't have much improvement in them, depending on the balance of your list and the role they fulfill.

In example, a limited ruckman who will never be best-22 might be handy depth, particularly when you're 'in the window', if you have no one else to fill the role if you're numero uno ruck is out injured.

I think this understanding of depth is what gave birth to the term "list clogger."

List depth which is what I think most teams focus on is probably used in a different context to how the term "depth player" is thrown about.

The difference between a 'depth player' and a 'list clogger' is very thin thread...

The width of which is dictated by ladder position.

Or even the time of year.

Depth is important in a given year. You're unlikely to have depth for a few years running, as the depth players will ultimately leave for a host of reasons, but to have depth when you're a genuine premiership chance is fantastic.

Ideally you want players under pressure to perform and depth gives you that. You want the players ranked 15-22 in your side feeling under pressure to retain their spot.

Collingwood had good players such as Lockyer, Medhurst, Blair, McAffer, Goldsack, Dick and a few others all knocking the door down last year and all capable of adequately fulfilling a role if they got their chance. It was a very healthy position to be in.

The Saints didn't have great depth, but nearly won a flag, so depth isn't the be all and end all, but it's ridiculously nice to have and will increase your chance of a flag if you're in contention.

Depth.

Is it such a valuable asset as so many claim?

Not as valuable as flexibility. If you've got both, all the better.

No player should be kept as 'depth,' if you do not see them becoming regulars in the 22 then move them on for someone who may improve your team in the long run.

Agree with this. Someone like Warnock instead of holding back a Davis or McDonald. Sometimes they're needed until the new blood are ready to step in. I think the MFC have been prudent to date by keeping depth until they've got the replacements necessary. They'll cull accordingly.

It's easy to recruit depth when you're ready to challenge. St Kilda did it by spending sweet FA. Guys like Ray, Peake, Gardiner, King, Polo, Gamble, Dempster, Dawson .....

If someone said that they wanted Warnock, Bate and Dunn, what would you want for? 3rd round pick?

Depth is the easy bit. The hard bit is getting the good players!

I still think Matty Bate is in our best team as a wingman who is given the ball and has the ability to roost it deep into our forwardline when pinpoint passes are not going to be possible. At his best, I rated him as a good guy to get the ball inside 50. He's not really a key forward at all, but a highly specialised kind of wingman.

Depth is just an illusion.

I still think Matty Bate is in our best team as a wingman who is given the ball and has the ability to roost it deep into our forwardline when pinpoint passes are not going to be possible. At his best, I rated him as a good guy to get the ball inside 50. He's not really a key forward at all, but a highly specialised kind of wingman.

By the time he marks it and turns around he'll be on the opposite wing. The Bate and Dunn experiments are over. Time to cut then free.

I still think Matty Bate is in our best team as a wingman who is given the ball and has the ability to roost it deep into our forwardline when pinpoint passes are not going to be possible. At his best, I rated him as a good guy to get the ball inside 50. He's not really a key forward at all, but a highly specialised kind of wingman.

I agree that wing has been his best position and he has been damaging kicking long inside fifty - he reminds me of a bit of a poor man's Ryan O'Keefe. Only issue is, does he bring more value to the side than others who might play this role and bring more skills to the table like Sylvia, Jones, Bail etc. or even Davey or Tapscott?

I still think Matty Bate is in our best team as a wingman who is given the ball and has the ability to roost it deep into our forwardline when pinpoint passes are not going to be possible. At his best, I rated him as a good guy to get the ball inside 50. He's not really a key forward at all, but a highly specialised kind of wingman.

The specialized type who when they line up on the premier wingman of the game (Dale Thomas, Hill for example) get slaughtered! Bate's a damn good VFL player who just isn't up to AFL any more. See Brock McLean.