On 06/03/2012 at 04:36, old55 said:

A toe-poke and an unlucky bounce away from 2 flags.

Saints.

"Under Ken Sheldon, coach from 1990 to 1993, St Kilda underwent a brief revival, contesting finals series in 1991 and 1992 with limited success. At their best, the Saints of the early 1990s were as good as any other side in the competition. Boasting arguably the game's premier key forwards in Tony Lockett and Stewart Loewe, and with a formidable midfield set up incorporating the likes of Nicky Winmar, Nathan Burke, Gilbert McAdam and Dean Greig, St Kilda were capable, on their day, of producing some truly awesome football."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_St_Kilda_Football_Club#1974.E2.80.931989

  On 06/03/2012 at 04:21, dee-luded said:

What! depth is crucial. If you don't have depth you don't have anything.

Now were finding our depth we need to unearth those champions your alluding too.

Each thing in it's turn.

Having 5 champions without any real quality depth will get you nowhere.

I don't care about depth. I don't care!

Give me 5 players that rival the best in the comp and I will be happy.

  On 06/03/2012 at 04:36, old55 said:

A toe-poke and an unlucky bounce away from 2 flags.

Quite right.

On the back of Riewoldt, Montagna, Dal Santo, Hayes, and Fisher. And not much else.

  On 06/03/2012 at 05:16, rpfc said:

I don't care about depth. I don't care!

Give me 5 players that rival the best in the comp and I will be happy.

Quite right.

On the back of Riewoldt, Montagna, Dal Santo, Hayes, and Fisher. And not much else.

I don't care about being entertained every week. We had that in the early 2000 -2004. Neitz wasted his remaining years doing just that.

I want one thing, Winning the BIG Games & Flags.

Each to his own.

I can't remember the last time 5 players beat 22.

Time for old Cliches me thinks.

A Champion Team will always beat a team of 5 Champions and 17 scrubbers (or something like that)

I am expecting the typical responses

  On 06/03/2012 at 05:24, dee-luded said:

I don't care about being entertained every week. We had that in the early 2000 -2004. Neitz wasted his remaining years doing just that.

I want one thing, Winning the BIG Games & Flags.

If my memory serves me correct we only played well in 2000, 2002 & 2004 the odd years we were on sabbatical, because we didn't have the depth.

  On 06/03/2012 at 05:32, Chippy said:

Each to his own.

I can't remember the last time 5 players beat 22.

Time for old Cliches me thinks.

A Champion Team will always beat a team of 5 Champions and 17 scrubbers (or something like that)

I am expecting the typical responses

.... to a typical cliche.

What makes a champion team in the AFL?........Its top 5/6 players. Its not a mutually exclusive issue.

  On 06/03/2012 at 05:34, Chippy said:

If my memory serves me correct we only played well in 2000, 2002 & 2004 the odd years we were on sabbatical, because we didn't have the depth.

Wrong. We didn't have the quality in the top 5. Our best 5 in that period were talented and capable players but were not good enough nor consistent enough to take us all the way.

Typical response.

Honestly, what do people think is the difference between us and Geel, Coll, and Haw?

It isn't the skills of our 18th best player and their 18th best player.

  On 06/03/2012 at 05:34, Chippy said:

If my memory serves me correct we only played well in 2000, 2002 & 2004 the odd years we were on sabbatical, because we didn't have the depth.

Thats right, we played well, but went nowhere,,, til we went down. They entertained us every other year, whilst trying to do a part time rebuild every second year. keep the cattle flowing in the turnstiles type entertainment.

9thmond! The doggies! plenty make up the numbers, & some want the Dynasty.

What will you settle for?

  On 06/03/2012 at 05:16, rpfc said:

I don't care about depth. I don't care!

Give me 5 players that rival the best in the comp and I will be happy.

Black & White argument. Never forget the shades of grey.

Some may suggest you need both, depth and a quality top 5-6.

Your depth will get you into the finals, then your quality (5-6) will rise to the top and win them for you.

  On 06/03/2012 at 10:49, Dr Who said:

Black & White argument. Never forget the shades of grey.

Some may suggest you need both, depth and a quality top 5-6.

Your depth will get you into the finals, then your quality (5-6) will rise to the top and win them for you.

I am a fan of nuance but let's get serious - depth is easier to find than a quality 5 or 6 players.

And your depth will not get you into the top 4, your stars will, and that is the only way to win a flag.

We have never had any issues finding decent players - it's the star players we haven't been able to develop.

Until that happens we won't have much success.

  On 06/03/2012 at 05:40, Rhino Richards said:

.... to a typical cliche.

What makes a champion team in the AFL?........Its top 5/6 players. Its not a mutually exclusive issue.

Wrong. We didn't have the quality in the top 5. Our best 5 in that period were talented and capable players but were not good enough nor consistent enough to take us all the way.

Agree with you here on this one

Of our best 5 in that period we had front runners who did not know how to do it hard

Trapper - could have been anything

Yze - front runner

White - built like Tarzan but did not impose himself as much as less talented ruckman have, the change in the ruck rule limiting his run up curbed his game a fair bit

Bruce - consistent for the decade of the noughties but I sometimes felt he cost us some turnovers by not attacking contests as hard as he should have

Neitz - the odd one out here gave everything

I'll take winning ugly every day of the week over entertaining up and down performances

  On 06/03/2012 at 22:04, rpfc said:

I am a fan of nuance but let's get serious - depth is easier to find than a quality 5 or 6 players.

And your depth will not get you into the top 4, your stars will, and that is the only way to win a flag.

We have never had any issues finding decent players - it's the star players we haven't been able to develop.

Until that happens we won't have much success.

Your gettin' worse.

Depth, quality depth is just as hard to achieve as Elite players. I takes just as long to build Quality Depth through a list as it does to unearth super stars. Mant side have entered grand finals & been pantsed for the Lack of Quality Depth.

And many teams have gotten into Grand Finals on the back of a superstar or 2 and fallen by the Wayside chapel.

No shortcuts curly.

The Hawks new it in the eighties with Alan Jeans at the Helm, no Italian jock steering their ship. A real dynasty evolved.

I don't know about the topic heading we will have to wait and see if the depth players are gold or lead. I agree we look to have back ups for most positions and competition will be there for most spots. I always like looking at our best 22 and the rest to see what we have as back ups my teams below

Bartram Frawley Garland

Grimes Rivers Bennell

Blease Sylvia Trengove

Howe Watts Green

Martin Clark Jurrah

Jamar Moloney Jones

Magner McKenzie Davey Petterd

Strauss Davis Sheahan

MacDonald Sellar Morton

Bail Bate Nicholson

Dunn Cook Tapscott

McDonald Williams Jetta

Fitzpatrick Couch Gysberts

Lawrence Tynon Taggert

Three players not considered due to injury Spencer, Gawn, Evans

  On 06/03/2012 at 02:32, rpfc said:

Terribly sorry, I was being facetious.

There is nothing more useless than having 30 players as good as each other.

We need 5 player that can match it with the best.

Depth is a red herring.

Spot on, depth is an illusion. What it is is you have 5 players who can replace your 5 last picked players, you can never replace the top 5 otherwise they would already be in the side.

The Australian cricket team is a case in point, we were all going on about the wonderful depth of our cricket but when we lost Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and Haydn what happened. You don't replace champions.

You both are right you need stars and depth now kiss and hug and make up.

  On 06/03/2012 at 22:50, dee-luded said:

Your gettin' worse.

Depth, quality depth is just as hard to achieve as Elite players. I takes just as long to build Quality Depth through a list as it does to unearth super stars. Mant side have entered grand finals & been pantsed for the Lack of Quality Depth.

And many teams have gotten into Grand Finals on the back of a superstar or 2 and fallen by the Wayside chapel.

No shortcuts curly.

The Hawks new it in the eighties with Alan Jeans at the Helm, no Italian jock steering their ship. A real dynasty evolved.

Curly?

Your argument is that having 'elite' (whatever the definition) players gets you to a GF, but that depth wins that GF?

So you agree that depth is only marginally important?

Developing elite players is what we need to worry about.

Your top 6 is vitally important in your quest for a flag. Afterall, talent wins premierships. But quality depth is also important. If your 18th player is about the equivalent of your 32nd player and both are [censored] then you've got a [censored] side. In reality, depth isn't a subject that is nearly as simple as it sounds. I'm reading dismissive posts on this very thread and all it tells me is that some haven't given nearly enough consideration to the complexities involved in developing players and lists with quality depth.

Unlike some on here I really rate structure and gameplans. I've read some posters who don't think there's much difference in the various gameplans and that they're not the be all and end all, but I couldn't disagree more. I bring this up because it gets back to the heart of "depth". With the right structures, training, disciplines and coaching the 26th best player on the list can play on GF day and perform a role really well. It could make or break a premiership tilt.

I believe that depth will often be dependent on the quality of the coach, the quality of the gameplan, the quality of the coaching group, the quality of the leadership group, and ultimately the quality of the Board and administration. The best clubs nearly always have great Boards and admin. And this has been the case for time immemorial. You won't keep a great coach if you don't have these in place, or if you lose your way. Whether you like Ross Lyon as a coach or not doesn't really matter, the Saints lost someone that was considered by the industry a great coach.

In essence these depth discussions only really touch the surface. There are a myriad of reasons why some clubs are able to develop players and some aren't. If you've got a great club and a great coach it won't be long before you have quality depth. You'll have cycles where you start losing depth, but you'll quickly recover. If a club doesn't have any money I'll show you a club with poor player depth. There are many complexities when it comes to a club's player depth.

NB: Supporters of clubs will typically overrate their own club's depth due to large doses of bias.

  On 06/03/2012 at 23:12, rpfc said:

Curly?

Your argument is that having 'elite' (whatever the definition) players gets you to a GF, but that depth wins that GF?

So you agree that depth is only marginally important?

Developing elite players is what we need to worry about.

No, you don't get it. Having elite payers doesn't guarantee you getting to grand finals, or even into the Finals. (see us in the '70's) Many teams have had elite players & gone nowhere near the Finals.

And some have got they're on the backs of a few good men to fall at the Final Hurdle. > Gary Ablett snr... etc.

We are on the right track having spent some 4 Years list rebuild,,,,,, & now had a complete overhaul of the Footy dept' with quality Coach & a teaching regime'. IMO the next 3 Years will see us @ school, As we climb the ladder to the top 4.

In this time I anticipate we will Unearth some Elite players from our group.

From 2014,,, Onwards & Upwards.

  On 06/03/2012 at 23:30, Ben-Hur said:

Your top 6 is vitally important in your quest for a flag. Afterall, talent wins premierships. But quality depth is also important. If your 18th player is about the equivalent of your 32nd player and both are [censored] then you've got a [censored] side. In reality, depth isn't a subject that is nearly as simple as it sounds. I'm reading dismissive posts on this very thread and all it tells me is that some haven't given nearly enough consideration to the complexities involved in developing players and lists with quality depth.

I have thoguht about it plenty, I used to get excited by depth. Depth is important if you just want to get in the eight. Help with injuries and all that.

But to actually win something, or play in the last fortnight in September - you need the coat tails of star players to ride on.

  On 06/03/2012 at 23:30, Ben-Hur said:

Unlike some on here I really rate structure and gameplans. I've read some posters who don't think there's much difference in the various gameplans and that they're not the be all and end all, but I couldn't disagree more. I bring this up because it gets back to the heart of "depth". With the right structures, training, disciplines and coaching the 26th best player on the list can play on GF day and perform a role really well. It could make or break a premiership tilt.

The rest of your post is a different argument to depth.

Role players are required and can make a player 'better' than they actually are. Steven Baker is a prime example of this. Clint Batram will be aswell, I believe.

But adherence to structures and a gameplan isn't creating depth of talent. It's just what every other decent team has.

There is no comparative advantage.

I understand where you are coming from - that a disciplined player adhering to a role improves their productivity/performance, but every good team has that.

From there it comes down to talent - marginally important for depth, incredibly important among your top half-dozen players.

  On 06/03/2012 at 23:30, Ben-Hur said:

Your top 6 is vitally important in your quest for a flag. Afterall, talent wins premierships. But quality depth is also important. If your 18th player is about the equivalent of your 32nd player and both are [censored] then you've got a [censored] side. In reality, depth isn't a subject that is nearly as simple as it sounds. I'm reading dismissive posts on this very thread and all it tells me is that some haven't given nearly enough consideration to the complexities involved in developing players and lists with quality depth.

Unlike some on here I really rate structure and gameplans. I've read some posters who don't think there's much difference in the various gameplans and that they're not the be all and end all, but I couldn't disagree more. I bring this up because it gets back to the heart of "depth". With the right structures, training, disciplines and coaching the 26th best player on the list can play on GF day and perform a role really well. It could make or break a premiership tilt.

I believe that depth will often be dependent on the quality of the coach, the quality of the gameplan, the quality of the coaching group, the quality of the leadership group, and ultimately the quality of the Board and administration. The best clubs nearly always have great Boards and admin. And this has been the case for time immemorial. You won't keep a great coach if you don't have these in place, or if you lose your way. Whether you like Ross Lyon as a coach or not doesn't really matter, the Saints lost someone that was considered by the industry a great coach.

In essence these depth discussions only really touch the surface. There are a myriad of reasons why some clubs are able to develop players and some aren't. If you've got a great club and a great coach it won't be long before you have quality depth. You'll have cycles where you start losing depth, but you'll quickly recover. If a club doesn't have any money I'll show you a club with poor player depth. There are many complexities when it comes to a club's player depth.

NB: Supporters of clubs will typically overrate their own club's depth due to large doses of bias.

I am probably in the biased basket But having followed the dees for over 50 years have had to endure many false dawns with an elite player who did not achieve the ultimate or even in some cases consistent individual or team results

Have followed footy and seen many champions ( some of who were most unsavourry in their approach to other players) but who could produce when it mattered. I agree with all you have said and think this is the depth along with the gameplan etc that I am hoping to see continue this year, With the astute approach seen so far the top 5-6 could well emerge this season.

I Hope!

Go Dees!

I think both depth and Elite top 5 are important.

Northey (i know -different era) - got the best out of a workman-like outfit - we had depth within the team in that the difference between the first and last picked was marginal. We suffered from a lack of a couple of superstar hence never taking us to the ultimate. You could level the same argument about Daniher.

I then look at StKilda and how they boasted Lockett, Loewe(?), Harvey and Burke in their line up and knew that they would never win a premiership because their last 5 picked would have struggled to get a game in any other team. The Saints talent fell away dramatically after the first 10 picked.

However - it is easier to lift your bottom 5 players to be really good contributors than to lift your top 5 players into an "elite" category (in my opinion depth will only get you so far - you need the superstars to take you to the top)

  On 07/03/2012 at 00:08, nutbean said:

I think both depth and Elite top 5 are important.

Northey (i know -different era) - got the best out of a workman-like outfit - we had depth within the team in that the difference between the first and last picked was marginal. We suffered from a lack of a couple of superstar hence never taking us to the ultimate. You could level the same argument about Daniher.

I then look at StKilda and how they boasted Lockett, Loewe(?), Harvey and Burke in their line up and knew that they would never win a premiership because their last 5 picked would have struggled to get a game in any other team. The Saints talent fell away dramatically after the first 10 picked.

However - it is easier to lift your bottom 5 players to be really good contributors than to lift your top 5 players into an "elite" category (in my opinion depth will only get you so far - you need the superstars to take you to the top)

Totally agree

and hope that the coaching staff are looking at both ends of the scale.

I think the lists that are around show we have plenty of potential if we can support and develop it

I agree with a few, depth isn't probably the word I'd use. Competition for spots has been a huge issue for us in the last 4 years, we've had such a young list and (rightfully) have been putting games into the future of the club, however this also means that there isn't as much jeopardy in playing a bad game.

The list we've got it's time to pick the team on form, no more gifting games.

  On 06/03/2012 at 23:41, rpfc said:

I have thoguht about it plenty, I used to get excited by depth. Depth is important if you just want to get in the eight. Help with injuries and all that.

But to actually win something, or play in the last fortnight in September - you need the coat tails of star players to ride on.

The rest of your post is a different argument to depth.

Role players are required and can make a player 'better' than they actually are. Steven Baker is a prime example of this. Clint Batram will be aswell, I believe.

But adherence to structures and a gameplan isn't creating depth of talent. It's just what every other decent team has.

There is no comparative advantage.

I understand where you are coming from - that a disciplined player adhering to a role improves their productivity/performance, but every good team has that.

From there it comes down to talent - marginally important for depth, incredibly important among your top half-dozen players.

No disrespect, but I don't need a lecture on the importance of stars. I've been banging on about getting stars since you were in short pants. But it doesn't have to be an either or argument. Stars are clearly the most important ingredient, because stars get you to a Grand Final, but sustained success, and I mean real success, as in multiple premierships, comes with stars plus quality depth. Every single side in the competition has depth. Depth is having 40 players on your list.

The best coaches and clubs develop players far better than ordinary clubs. Sydney seem to perennially finish in the top 6 even though they never seem to have access to early draft picks. They have a program that successfully develops and nurtures their talent. They have plenty of players that would have been chumps if they'd been drafted to Melbourne. They were able to develop quality depth through their systems, not luck.

Collingwood lost two grand finals in the early 2,000's; and with Buckley finishing their window looked to have closed. They went back to the well and picked up class with Pendlebury and Thomas, they had some luck with a qualith Father/Son pick and rebuilt themselves into a premiership outfit. They have an elite program to develop players. And if you're developing players better than just about every other club you start developing quality depth. You have a massive advantage, because you're regularly putting yourself in contention for a flag.

A club should have the ambition to develop every single player on their list into a good player. Achievable ? Of course not, but clearly a team is going to give themselves every chance of success if they're able to facilitate quality outcomes with their stock. Why do you think clubs now spend a fortune on rookie players ? They don't draft them just to have them participate in training drills. They expect their rookie players to become quality senior players. That's why they recruited them. They don't recruit them to become "role players".

As I said, it's more complex and far more important than you seem to understand. I hope I've helped.

rpfc knows when he is being patronised.

  On 07/03/2012 at 00:38, Ben-Hur said:

No disrespect, but I don't need a lecture on the importance of stars. I've been banging on about getting stars since you were in short pants. But it doesn't have to be an either or argument. Stars are clearly the most important ingredient, because stars get you to a Grand Final, but sustained success, and I mean real success, as in multiple premierships, comes with stars plus quality depth. Every single side in the competition has depth. Depth is having 40 players on your list.

A club should have the ambition to develop every single player on their list into a good player. Achievable ? Of course not, but clearly a team is going to give themselves every chance of success if they're able to facilitate quality outcomes with their stock. Why do you think clubs now spend a fortune on rookie players ? They don't draft them just to have them participate in training drills. They expect their rookie players to become quality senior players. That's why they recruited them. They don't recruit them to become "role players".

As I said, it's more complex and far more important than you seem to understand. I hope I've helped.

BH, the argument I am making in this thread - deperately trying to keep it on track despite your desire to push my argument into a semantical corner - is that the 'Embarrrassment of Riches' that the OP discusses is an embarrassment but not in riches.

Depth in playing talent is only icing to the proverbial cake. It is nothing but the 'competitiveness' that many on here derided Bailey for proclaiming as his desire for this team.

That sentiment is; fans are sick and tired of being also-rans, they are sick and tired of lauding the MFC for developing excellent 18th to 32nd players on our list, they want to see success.

And that comes about, by your own condescending admission, by developing or obtaining player of quality - 'star,' 'A-grade,' 'elite,' or whatever descriptor takes ones fancy.

That is the argument at the heart of this thread.

If you want to inform Land on the importance of structures and a decent gameplan, you can.

We have heard that sermon already, but go ahead and start a thread.