List analysis and the clock again

[grazman 7,451]

I think if we are going to be as good as Jared Rivers suggested this week in the media - then we need the next tier of younger players to move to the next level (which at least in pre season it appears as though they are). With Bate, Jones, McLean, Bell, Dunn etc coming on, the 30+ players I see as automatic selections are the skipper and junior. As mercurial as some of the other older brigade are - Yze, Robbo, Byron etc. They really need to be consistent rather than brilliant and If we are to be a contender I see them as depth players. One good performance every three or four games from three or four players isn't enough. Premierships are won by sides with the players who play consistently well, not necessarily brilliantly well.

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

Premierships are won by sides with the players who play consistently well, not necessarily brilliantly well.

Youth v Experience

[grazman 7,451]

Youth v Experience

I'm not sure of your contention Fan, but if you mean that McLean, Bartram, Jones etc weren't the players that let us down last year then I agree. My view is that I don't care how many games a bloke has played for the club, the only form that is important is his current form. I don't want Yesterday's hero's, I want today's.

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

I'm not sure of your contention Fan,

My contention is that with experience comes consistency. Clearly that consistency has to be at a satisfactory standard.

Players like Matthew Bate, Clint Bartram, Chris Johnson or Daniel Bell over 22 games my provide better individual games than an experienced player but they will also provide more poor games. At least that's my contention.

Hence the dilemma. When you're going for a flag do you rely on youth? It's easy for Richmond and Hawthorn, not so easy for us.

[Jaded No More 68,972]

As mercurial as some of the other older brigade are - Yze, Robbo, Byron etc. They really need to be consistent rather than brilliant and If we are to be a contender I see them as depth players. One good performance every three or four games from three or four players isn't enough. Premierships are won by sides with the players who play consistently well, not necessarily brilliantly well.

I disagree.

Players like Byron, with all of his experience and his excellent record in big games, or Robbo, who is the heart and soul of the club, are necessary to our success.

I'm all for youth, but a team made up of kids plus Neita and Junior, will not deliver every week. You want our older players to perform every week, but then inconsistency is the definition of youth.

We need to get the blend right, and put simply, if you can find players who better serve our purpose than the three you mentioned, than that's great. But I think you will find it very hard to replace all three with youth, when already a big chunk of our core players are so young.

We should expect our kids to keep getting better, and indeed for us to succeed they have to. But at the same time, we cannot rely on a group of five or six, 20-somethings, to deliver us a flag. If it was that easy, teams wouldn't have to spend years rebuilding.

[grazman 7,451]

Fan, Jaded. I know I'm flogging a dead horse here and probably only reinforcing my own self defeating prophecies. But here goes....

I don't necessarily agree with your contention Fan. To a point it is true - teenagers rarely have the motor or the body shape to compete for 120 minutes at AFL standard. But...I would expect that by the time a player reaches 23 and over they are starting to approach their maximum in terms of physical condition and hence capacity. Neitz is still a powerful player, but this is complemented by his experience.

I did a little research that suggest that neither Robbo's or Adem's last three finals were a patch on their previous three. This of course can be explained by playing different roles, injuries etc. My own view is that neither player has contributed significantly in the last three finals and the trend is going downwards and doesn't compare favourably to players of a similar age like Neita, Junior and Whitey. As you say Jaded Pickett is a big game player and his stats compare favourably.

I realise that the following data is a little arbitrary in a way but compare the age of the Grand Finalists and our last team.

Dees.

30+ three

26-29 nine

23-25 three

18-22 seven

Swans

30+ one

26-29 ten

23-25 seven

18-22 four

Eagles

30+ two

26-29 six

23-25 nine

18-22 five

Looks comprable, sort of.... well how about this year. With the same sides in 07 the Dees will have 7 players over 30, the Swans 4 players and the Eagles just one (Banfield retired).

My contention is that of more importance than the age of a player is attitude. No disrespect to Kent Kingsley, but just because you get older, doesn't mean you get better. I'm not pushing older guys out for younger guys because they are younger, I'm suggesting we pick blokes on form and attitude irrespective of their age.

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

Food for thought Graz. It will be fascinating to see how it pans out.

I fully agree that mental attitude is vital. As you probably know I've long been of the view that winning is not necessarily a players top priority. Identifing those with a passionate desire to win is vital.

It's interesting to see how many 30+ players we'll have come the GF and highlights the amount of experience we will lose in the next few years.

Thanks for taking the time to do the stats.

[rumpole 522]

Food for thought Graz. It will be fascinating to see how it pans out.

I fully agree that mental attitude is vital. As you probably know I've long been of the view that winning is not necessarily a players top priority. Identifing those with a passionate desire to win is vital.

It's interesting to see how many 30+ players we'll have come the GF and highlights the amount of experience we will lose in the next few years.

Thanks for taking the time to do the stats.

The puntroadend site has an interesting analysis of our list as well. On the basis of the data, they're tipping us to finish in 10th spot this year which suggests we've passed our peak for the moment - read it here http://www.puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=25260.0

[mauriesy 7,352]

The puntroadend site has an interesting analysis of our list as well. On the basis of the data, they're tipping us to finish in 10th spot this year which suggests we've passed our peak for the moment

It's a very simplistic assessment just dividing players up into age groups and height, without studying how crucial they are ("core players"), their impact, inside/outside skill, games played or team balance. You can adopt a concept or analysis model of your choosing, and draw all sorts of erroneous conclusions. GIGO.

For instance, there's no mention of games experience in the young players, or the actual impact the older players have.

Players weighting the "old" end of the scale, like Brown, Wheatley, Bizzell, Holland, Yze, Ward, Godfrey, Ferguson and Nicholson (who has retired ... a light into the analyser's knowledge maybe?), are not "core" players. It's not like Collingwood, whose aging players are still largely their core.

Of the young players, some are great talent who have now got enough games under their belt. Jones, Bell, McLean, CJ, Bartram, Sylvia and Bate are now, or nearly "core" players. And I'd rather have a few tough Brocks than a few quick Tamblings.

I also don't believe Melbourne lacks runners, and besides, there's still debate about how important they'll really be. Western Bulldogs run at all costs style play failed dismally against West Coast, and anyone could have run the legs off Collingwood.

I also think a statement like "Melbourne's great weakness in 2007 will be its ability to run out full games, and to run out a full season" is just an easy and glib regurgitation without much knowledge or real analysis of the list ... the sort of cliched utterance you often get from another team's supporter making easy pickings of past events. Like the Bomberland forum analysis that said "after Sylvia and McLean, Melbourne's young talent looks a bit thin"!

I hold hopes that with better conditioning, fitness and a good pre-season, this year will be markedly different.

[grazman 7,451]

Food for thought Graz. It will be fascinating to see how it pans out.

I fully agree that mental attitude is vital. As you probably know I've long been of the view that winning is not necessarily a players top priority. Identifing those with a passionate desire to win is vital.

It's interesting to see how many 30+ players we'll have come the GF and highlights the amount of experience we will lose in the next few years.

Thanks for taking the time to do the stats.

I think we are on a similar band width, if not completely on the same wavelength Fan. Older recruits/rookies like

Carroll and Davey have worked for us, but only when they have got their heads right and decided they wanted to play footy.

I know many subscribe to the premiership clock, but I'm not one of them. Nor do I suspect is Leigh Matthews.

There was an interesting article in the HUN the other day that caught my eye.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/com...5E19746,00.html

Many may have given this a cursory glance and not much of a second thought. Many would consider that the Lions are now entering a phase of "rebuilding". They've had success and a significant experience loss. Many would expect them to accept their lot in the football cycle.

I think it's a very brave move by one of the league's most successful coaches. The process is a brutal one and many an ego will be bruised, but it is one that seeks to identify those whose priority is themselves and those that are driven to succeed. It identifies weaknesses with players, coaches, staff the club culture etc.

There is no scientific formula for success in footy. Sides need talent, but that alone is not enough. Many are hungry, but there are many dissapointed players from other clubs that watch the grandfinal on TV. Team unity and discipline is what separates the premiers from the contenders. Being able to work as a cohesive unit. Talent, hunger and discipline. We need to be better organised and disciplined and exploit our opponents weaknesses to cause confusion and demoralise them.

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

I know many subscribe to the premiership clock, but I'm not one of them. Nor do I suspect is Leigh Matthews.

Love your contributions Graz.

The premiership clock. It's a great topic and one that was raised elsewhere and got me thinking. I'm still thinking! but at the moment I'm a firm believer. Where people go wrong is to think the clock will do the work for them, a little like kicking with the wind. People also think that if you get to 12.00 o'clock you win. That's clearly wrong. There is nothing to say 4 or 5 clubs can't be at 12.00 o'clock at once, but there is only one flag. Who wins will depend on a whole range of factors including culture, injuries, luck, leadership and most importantly the inherant strength of your list.

But a list definately has a cycle, or at least should be designed to have a cycle. If you manage your playing list so it doesn't have this cycle you'll never win a flag. Winning a flag is all about having a core group of players that reach their peak together. The bigger and stronger that core group the better placed you are. And IMO that's the primary goal of list management. The severity of the "list management" cycle, the downside, will be based on the success and skill of recruiters/traders and the intangibles of the club.

But I'm sure the clock is a useful tool to help with decision making. Hawthorn have used it to build a list. Everett, Thompson and Hay have been discarded for early picks. I've not analysed their list, but in 3 or 4 years I suspect they will have a list that is bunched and talented, a very good position to be. Other teams will be past 12.00 on a list management basis, the Saints perhaps the best example with Harvey, Gehrig, Hamill and a few other oldies gone.

The clock is not for measuring success, it is a tool to help understand your list and make appropriate decisions.

[Whispering_Jack 30,575]

The clock is not for measuring success, it is a tool to help understand your list and make appropriate decisions.

At best a tool and I'm not sure how useful a tool it is, given all of the other factors that are in play in developing a successful list (not to mention the effects on list structure of injuries, rule changes, emphasis on athleticsm vs. size/both? etc).

If one or two fall by the wayside because of injury and a few others don't come up to the mark (e.g. Jared Brennan at the Lions - we all expected him to be a champ by now) then the place where you're at on the clock can drastically alter very quickly.

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

At best a tool and I'm not sure how useful a tool it is, given all of the other factors that are in play in developing a successful list (not to mention the effects on list structure of injuries, rule changes, emphasis on athleticsm vs. size/both? etc).

...the place where you're at on the clock can drastically alter very quickly.

This is where you and I differ.

Melbourne has a young improving list, a proposition I think that you'd support. If Brock McLean and Jarad Rivers were, for some reason, unavailable or not on our list, our position on the clock would not change drastically, particularly if they were replaced by players of a similar age (eg. Tenace and Merritt) . What would change is the relative strength of our list compared to other clubs at a similar stage of development (spot on the clock).

This is a complex topic. Graz has shown we have quite a number of players who are "old" (on face value suggesting we are beyond 12.00 o'clock). The next step of course is to analyse how important those "old" players are to your team. I'd contend that Neitz is critical, Ward, Bizzell, Yze and Brown are not.

I'd contend "the clock" is a very useful tool, not necessarily easily understood. Hawthorn and Richmond wasted a couple of years when they misread it, or chose to misread it. We've got our reading about right and decided to act upon it.

All credit to the FD for doing that.

[demonfanjezza 1]

Thanks for making the things clearer to understand, regarding premership clocks and why they are not very useful. Thanks mates

[grazman 7,451]

This is where you and I differ.

Melbourne has a young improving list, a proposition I think that you'd support. If Brock McLean and Jarad Rivers were, for some reason, unavailable or not on our list, our position on the clock would not change drastically, particularly if they were replaced by players of a similar age (eg. Tenace and Merritt) . What would change is the relative strength of our list compared to other clubs at a similar stage of development (spot on the clock).

This is a complex topic. Graz has shown we have quite a number of players who are "old" (on face value suggesting we are beyond 12.00 o'clock). The next step of course is to analyse how important those "old" players are to your team. I'd contend that Neitz is critical, Ward, Bizzell, Yze and Brown are not.

I'd contend "the clock" is a very useful tool, not necessarily easily understood. Hawthorn and Richmond wasted a couple of years when they misread it, or chose to misread it. We've got our reading about right and decided to act upon it.

All credit to the FD for doing that.

The issue of list development has taken hold of me lately. How does a club go about developing a list and ensuring that they are competitive? There are many different variables at different clubs, but I find it intriguing the differences of approach at Adelaide and Sydney when they changed coaches compared to say Hawthorn an Richmond - and thanks for raising that topic Fan.

When Adelaide recruited the Duck, I like many others I think, made comment at the time that it smacked a little of desperation and was seen as a last roll of the dice with an aging list. Two years later the Duck was shot as was their premiership clock coach in Gary Ayres. Enter stage left Neil Craig - he had a list with aging stars, young kids and precious little in between. In that time he has manufactured one of the tightest most disciplined outfits going around that with a little luck could easily have been playing off in the last two Grand Finals. I'd fallen for the premiership clock bait and like Professor Miller asked myself "Why is it so?" - or rather "Why aren't they rebuilding?"

Hawthorn adopted the premiership clock model and it remains to be seen how many of their young kids will make the cut, though I think Fan that its pretty clear why they unloaded Hay and they actually wanted to keep Everett, but he was always out for himself. To say that both they and Richmond had wasted years in wrongly assessing their list is right, only so far as they believed that some of their players were better than what they were. I think Saint Kilda will be a fascinating case study this year. Many have pinned their lack of success to one man and see that Ross Lyon is now in the box seat to have a tilt at a flag with a list approaching midnight.

I can't see that there is a cycle in a list - players come on to the list and players leave it. I assume that the premiership clock being linked to the core of players is somehow linked to relative draft selections over a number of years. I think Adelaide and Sydney have demonstrated that this doesn't have to be the case.

Just a rider to my previous analysis though Fan, the seven I mentioned being 30 and over didn't include two other players you mentioned. Here is a complete list of our listed players 30 and over this year - I'll leave it up to individuals how many they think would make a grand final team.

Bizzell 31

Brown 31

Holland 30

Junior 31

Neitz 32

Pickett 30

Ward 30

White 30

Yze 30

FWIW I have my own theory about Premierships... those with the most money to invest in their footy departments win them. The exception in the last 20 years has been North, and all it took for them to do it was the best player the game has ever seen.

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

Enter stage left Neil Craig - he had a list with aging stars, young kids and precious little in between. In that time he has manufactured one of the tightest most disciplined outfits going around that with a little luck could easily have been playing off in the last two Grand Finals. I'd fallen for the premiership clock bait and like Professor Miller asked myself "Why is it so?" - or rather "Why aren't they rebuilding?"

How I'd like to chat about this over a beer (or three)!!

The Adelaide example is a terrific one and has many a good judge wondering if the clock exists. The regular arguement is when you get to 3.00 just offload players, pick up draft picks and bingo, just wait until it all happens. Hawthorn and Richmond (Ottens) followed this theory). It will probably work in the long run but may not bring success as the players they pick up may not be good enough.

Adelaide came back from the dead. They have/had what many clubs didn't. Stars. Hart, Ricciuto, McLeod, Goodwin, Edwards. Without these guys they were shot. But they did a "Demons 1998" although they did it better. And you're right. Neil Craig brought a new approach. I think he read moneyball. He looks at stats. He gathers information and he has analyists. He has a state of the art footy department. He has resources we can only dream about. He got a jump on the competition in gameplan. He is able to send his players away for detailed leadership training and they will have a team of sports psychologists (don't get me started).

It will work until the rest catch up. But when his stars finally go the Crows will drop back. That's the theory anyway.

Sydney have a particular advantage. It's called $600,000 additional salary cap. It gets you players like Hall, Lockett and allows you to buy Everitt for a year or two. And they have a brilliant coach IMO. And how do they avoid injuries?

I stress again, the clock doesn't mean when you get to 12.00 you win. It doesn't mean it's impossible to win when you're not at 12.00. It's just a tool to show you were your list is.

Just as an aside, I think there is only one or perhaps two critically important players in our over 30 group. The rest are relatively easily replaced. Brock, Jarad, Cam and TJ along with Neita and perhaps White are critical to our cause. Carroll is close. The loss of anyone else is not desirable but not terminal either. If you did the same comparison with Adelaide I reckon you'd find many more of their over 30's in the critical list.

[old55 23,687]

Didn't expect to find this topic under that heading.

No clock eh? How come four premiers prior to the last 2 finished in the nether regions of the ladder last year? Coincidence I guess?

What Adelaide is doing is clinging on by their fingernails - and their resources buy pretty strong fingernails. Sydney will have 3 years in the bottom 4 starting in 2009 and Roos will be gone - probably worth it for the flag after 72 years.

As Fan says, just because you reach 12:00 doesn't mean you win - it depends on your quality. WC has excellent quality and it is quite young so they will have an extended period at the top. We're at 12:00 right now too, but the good thing is that ND's forward thinking list development means we'll have an extended period at the top of the cycle.

Call me when a club wins two flags a generation of players apart (7 years) without dropping out of the finals. It is possible but that club will need to ruthlessly and selectively trade its premiership players for picks. No-one has shown that courage yet, not even Leigh Matthews.

[Whispering_Jack 30,575]

This is where you and I differ.

Melbourne has a young improving list, a proposition I think that you'd support. If Brock McLean and Jarad Rivers were, for some reason, unavailable or not on our list, our position on the clock would not change drastically, particularly if they were replaced by players of a similar age (eg. Tenace and Merritt). What would change is the relative strength of our list compared to other clubs at a similar stage of development (spot on the clock).

This is a complex topic. Graz has shown we have quite a number of players who are "old" (on face value suggesting we are beyond 12.00 o'clock). The next step of course is to analyse how important those "old" players are to your team. I'd contend that Neitz is critical, Ward, Bizzell, Yze and Brown are not.

I'd contend "the clock" is a very useful tool, not necessarily easily understood. Hawthorn and Richmond wasted a couple of years when they misread it, or chose to misread it. We've got our reading about right and decided to act upon it.

All credit to the FD for doing that.

If this is a "complex" topic, the clock doesn't simplify it all. It doesn't have all of the answers - only some of them. As you say, you need to be able to analyse the importance of individuals within a team but if you want success you need to have a balanced team with the right combination of the different types of players. The clock doesn't give us too many answers in this regard.

Here's just one example. How does the clock help us in determining when it became/becomes necessary for Melbourne to actively start searching for an additional ruckman to cover the anticipated loss of Jeff White? This year, last year, next year?

It's arguable that White's use by date is getting very close. He's 195cm, the rules have changed in recent years to his detriment and you have agile giants like Cox running around in opposition teams. Sandilands has creamed him two years running. Mark Jamar hasn't done enough to date to show that he can take the #1 ruck mantle, PJ is a long way off and our only other ruckman is a rookie. There were very few ruck prospects in the 2006 and the best one was snapped up early. We didn't actively trade for a ruckman either. In other words, you could be in the right place on the clock but your team might not have the correct makeup.

On the issue of the strength of your playing list, perception plays a big role here. Looking at our "young improving list of players", I'll nominate one of the younger brigade. Michael Newton. My perception 6 months ago was that he could go on to become a very valuable footballer with some freakish ability. He might still do that but I'm already nowhere near as confident today as I was back then. That's an assessment based not only on reports from one practice match but it's based on what I've seen, heard and read through the pre-season. Time will tell.

On top of the many and varied "micro issues" that make this a complex subject, there's the problem that in any event, we can't even get agreement on what time we've reached on the clock. Where is Melbourne at the moment - 9pm, 10pm, 11pm, midnight, 1am?

That's why I'm not all that convinced about the usefulness of the clock in the overall scheme of things.

[Nasher 33,617]

I've split this in to its own thread... carry on.

[Demon15 0]

Call me when a club wins two flags a generation of players apart (7 years) without dropping out of the finals. It is possible but that club will need to ruthlessly and selectively trade its premiership players for picks. No-one has shown that courage yet, not even Leigh Matthews.

very insightful comment this.

And the rest of the post too, and the one before by 'Fan'.

MFC is around the 12.00 mark, but lots of other things need to fall into place.

Good off-field structure, solid financial performance (not brilliant, but getting better), emerging stars in key posts (brock, rivers, carroll, dunn, Bate, jamar), loyal supporters (not the most, but still quality nevertheless), and maybe a coach now with a plan B.

Hang on,

we've got all the above haven't we?

[Demon15 0]

"That's why I'm not all that convinced about the usefulness of the clock in the overall scheme of things."

The clock is a rubbish concept. We may as well discuss weapons of Mass Destruction.

It was a term Malcolm Blight used when at Adelaide to explain how he pinched 2 premierships in 97, and 98.

Remember '98, when we beat them by 8 goals coasting in Week 1.

He didn't know how it happened so thought this sounded as good as any.

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

That's why I'm not all that convinced about the usefulness of the clock in the overall scheme of things.

Not useful? Agreed, it isn't for detail, but it is for strategy.

Where do you think Carlton are on the clock?

Where do you think Adelaide are on the clock?

Where do you think Melbourne are on the clock?

I think there is a good argument that if Carlton had any 28 or 29 yo good players that were valuable to other clubs they should have traded them for early picks. Why? They are not in GF contention and should stockpile good young players who in time will become a force. Hawthorn did this.

So IMO they are at about 6.00 on the clock.

Adelaide are an ageing list with some good support young players and they have a show. I'd place them at 1-2 o'clock. They may have a show if their good old players have good seasons. Without them they are shot. But there list has seen it's best days.

Melbourne are at about 11 on the clock. Why? Because if the list hadn't changed from 2006 to 2007 I'd have expected our team to be better. Hence we are between 6.00 and 12.00. And the majority of our important youth is gaining experience and can be relied on to perform more consistently so we are approaching 12.00.

If the clock doesn't exist why have just about all premiership teams gone through a weak stage. Essendon, Brisbane, PA and WC have all had periods at the bottom. Some declines are greater than others but they all come.

Sydney is a bit of an exception. But I think their time will come i n the next year or so.

[Jarka 767]

Not useful? Agreed, it isn't for detail, but it is for strategy....

The clock is a bad comparison imho. It's more of a pendulum.

The reason is pretty straighforward, in a footy club you usually have about 3 or 4 'generations' of players coming through, ie White, Neitz, Brown and Green, Bruce and TJ etc. Clubs that have these generations all firing at once have a pretty good shot at winning a GF, but if a club is relying on one generation to pull them through once they retire it will take them a bit to get back up, these clubs generally need a couple of generations to come through to have another shot.

I probably haven't ecplained myself properly, I've had a long day sorry.

[Whispering_Jack 30,575]

Not useful? Agreed, it isn't for detail, but it is for strategy.

Where do you think Carlton are on the clock?

Where do you think Adelaide are on the clock?

Where do you think Melbourne are on the clock?

Being somewhat anticlock I can't really answer these questions but let me put it this way.

To my mind, the theory is not sophisticated enough to gauge the complex realties of a sport at an elite level like AFL football. The concept of a clock face is too one dimensional to adequately define the cyclical nature of a particular team's development within such a competition.

The key is the word "cyclical". AFL is more than just a sport; it's big business and, as such, it operates according to the same lines as all other businesses. The clubs that make up the AFL are subject to cyclical fluctuations that are dependent upon several factors, not the least of which is the strength of a particular club's list but there are many others. The premiership clock theory tells us where people think a club should be in terms of the make up of its list based mainly on how the list comprised in terms of the age and experience of the players. The other important factors that come into play in determining the success of a particular team over a season are the physical and mental condition of its players, the coaching tactics and strategies employed, stability within the playing group and the organisation, fixture and travel considerations and, of course, the "luck" factor.

I've therefore come up with a slightly different model - one that's three dimensional. I call it a sphere or more properly, the globe. On my Sporting Globe model I have Carlton situated at a latitude of 29 degrees north and a longitude of 33 degrees east which places the Blues in Egypt about adjacent to the Red Sea. Problem is the said sea hasn't parted for thousands of years so while new president Dick Pratt might have a historical connection with the last group that made it across on foot, I wouldn't be holding my breath.

Melbourne on the other hand is situated a little to the north east having passed latitude 30 north and closing in on 35 east. Problem is that the Demons have been wandering around in circles for more than the allocated forty years and still haven't found their way out of the wilderness into the promised land. Still, there's some reason for hope there.

Adelaide have been ready for a while now but they overshot the mark and missed the Jordan River entirely having passed 33 degrees north and 44 east. By the time the season proper starts I expect them to have crossed a different river altogether - the Tigris - and be smack dab in the middle of Baghdad and although they might put up a bit of a fight, they could be in more than a spot of bother by season's end.

I trust that this gives a clearer picture than the one dimensional clock theory which has been shot down by Paul Roos and his band of men at Sydney. I hear what's been said about Sydney's salary cap limit but if there is a difference between Sydney and the others then it could well be justified given the higher cost of living in Sydney c.f. the other capital cities and Geelong.

I'll remind you again about the Member's Information Night of 2002 (remember when we used to have them?).

Most of us will remember that night for the kerfuffle regarding the club's dealings with Shane Woewodin and Stephen Powell ahem… err certain players. But I remember it for another thing and that was the coach's lengthy dissertation on the "clock".

In particular, one of his conclusions was that the Sydney Swans had passed their window of opportunity and they were now in the early morning hours i.e. the worst spot on the clock while Melbourne was in the late afternoon and moving albeit slowly towards early evening and the dawn of opportunity.

Paul Roos had taken over as "caretaker" coach of the Swans and they were freely admitting that this was a time of "transition", feeling the impact of the retirement of players like Tony Lockett, Paul Kelly, Andrew Dunkley and Wayne Schwass. This, from a Jake Niall report in the Age in early 2003:- DROOPING SWANS FACE THE PAIN OF REBUILDING (sorry the link to the Age is now dead)

"The problem is the team. The Swans have one of the weakest playing lists in the competition. The club, once prone to misguided optimism about its chances, has quickly developed a keen sense of realism. Coach Paul Roos, ever an astute reader of the play, has been quick to adopt the "rebuilding" rhetoric and downplay expectations - a spin repeated on Saturday night when the team fell to the hitherto horrible Hawks."

and

"More worrisome, the bottoming-out process - in terms of the list - might not be complete. Skipper Stuart Maxfield and dual best and fairest Paul Williams are both beyond 30, as are Daryn Cresswell and Jason Ball. The demographics of the list suggest that there will be more acute pain before the draft begins to work."

That grim outlook matched what Neale Daniher had predicted at the MIN a few months earlier.

However, as it happened, the Swans felt no acute pain in the ensuing period. In fact they made the finals every year since the end of 2002 and played off in the past two grand finals for one premiership, their first after 72 long years.

I'm hoping we can follow suit an that our run of outs doesn't go past 43, clock or no clock.

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

Just because Neale Daniher misjudged where the Swans were on the clock doesn't mean it doesn't exist. On the contrary. The clock has successfully predicted the rise and fall of many clubs. What's the saying? "The exception that proves the rule".

Frawley and Schwab also completely misjudged their situation. And that was with knowledge of their own lists, not someone elses.

As you are clearly able to understand the sphere I'd suggest you use that as your tool. I'll use the clock. It's a useful tool. It doesn't pretend to be the single defining mechanism for judgeing a clubs prospects and strengths but it forms part of the mosiac.

If it doesn't work for you, don't use it. But it works for me.