List analysis and the clock again

[CHAMP 347]

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.

Not so Fan. I had a look at our worst 6 performances for 2006 and consistently among the worst performers in those games were White, Robertson and Neitz. Also prominent were Rivers, Jamar, Sylvia, Holland and Carroll. None of them really have any excuses.

[old55 21,356]

"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."

Yes but it was just rehetoric at Sydney - they didn't rebuild, the didn't trade senior players for picks, they didn't stock up on young talent - they traded their picks for experienced players and have continued to do so. Roos is a great tactical coach and extracted a flag, he's stretched the rubber band. But believers in the clock reckon he is now eyeballing a far greater list catastrophe. If the clock has no validity then the Swans philosophy will be sustainable and they can stay at the top for years to come. Interesting that Roos has vowed that he'll quit when his current generation of senior players retires in a year or so.

As Fan says, the clock does not fully describe the complexity in footy, but it's a valuable model.

[Slartibartfast 15,800]

Not so Fan. I had a look at our worst 6 performances for 2006 and consistently among the worst performers in those games were White, Robertson and Neitz. Also prominent were Rivers, Jamar, Sylvia, Holland and Carroll. None of them really have any excuses.

Many would contend that Neitz, White and Robertson are amongst our most valuable players. Rivers and Carroll also.

It doesn't surprise me at all that when 5 of our most important players play badly we lose.

This supports rather than refutes my proposition.

[rumpole 480]

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.

How many exceptions to a rule do you need to disprove the rule?

Why did the Baby Bombers and not the mature Carlton of 1993 win the flag that year when the Blues were right on 12 midnight?

Three years later, the same Carlton which should have been at 3am by then but instead they had a sensational season losing only 2 games and winning a flag.

It's also arguable that the Kangaroos won the flag in 1996 and remained a power through '97 to at least '00 but were overshadowed by Adelaide who were nowhere near optimum on the clock in 97-98.

How do you explain Collingwood in '02 & '03 compared to '04 & '05 with the aid of the clock?

[Slartibartfast 15,800]

How many exceptions to a rule do you need to disprove the rule?

Why did the Baby Bombers and not the mature Carlton of 1993 win the flag that year when the Blues were right on 12 midnight?

Three years later, the same Carlton which should have been at 3am by then but instead they had a sensational season losing only 2 games and winning a flag.

It's also arguable that the Kangaroos won the flag in 1996 and remained a power through '97 to at least '00 but were overshadowed by Adelaide who were nowhere near optimum on the clock in 97-98.

How do you explain Collingwood in '02 & '03 compared to '04 & '05 with the aid of the clock?

From my post on 21st Feb at 9.58:

"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."

Hope this helps.

[DemonTux 95]

The clock serves as an illustration of someone's opinion as to where they think their team is at.

In terms of looking at the competition as a whole as stated earlier a 3 dimensinal model would be more appropriate.

Something like climbing a mountain.

- Carlton is starting at the base of a cliff

- West Coast and Sydney are both standing at the bottom of known paths to the top but that doesnt mean ithey cant smooth them out a little

- Every other team have taken on board what was learnt last time they attempted to climb the mountain and either a re aproaching it from a different angle (ie stkilda) or something closer to the same (us) but trying to perfect it through experience.

[Demon Head 250]

Melbourne has a young improving list, a proposition I think that you'd support.

How do you support the proposition that Melbourne's list is young? Statistically, we have a list that's close to the oldest in the competition. We do have some very good young players who will be improvers but most of the other clubs have more good young players with potential than we have.

I think it would be more correct to say that we have some good young players whose development will improve us as a club in 2007 but in the medium term we have some rebuilding to do.

But what happens if the careers of all of our 30 year plus players end at roughly the same time? Are we going to face a dliemma then in that we have too many holes in our list to fill in a short space of time?

[Slartibartfast 15,800]

How do you support the proposition that Melbourne's list is young?

Jones, McLean, Bate, Miller, Sylvia, Dunn, CJ, Bartram, Bell, Moloney, Rivers, Jamar and Davey are all pretty much established players and are in their first 5 years of the game. I've not included Frawley, Petterd, Garland, Weetra, Buckley, Neville and Newton as these guys haven't played yet. But some of them will make it and Frawley and Petterd I'm very bullish about. As a group they will improve.

I also think that McLean, Bate, Jones, Moloney and Bartram have the potential to be the best midfield we've had for as long as I can remember.

Anyway we have between 11 - 13 players who, if they are not now, will become core players for us. And I guess I look at the strength of the core players, which I rate highly. That's a judgement, I agree.

Of the old players Graz has listed only Neitz and perhaps White will be difficult to replace. Junior, while terrific, is by no means irreplaceable. Brown, Bizzell, Ward, Holland, etc are not core players and when they leave will not hurt the team unduly. Yze and Robbo are solid citizens but can be reasonably easily replaced.

That's how I support the proposition. And note, I'm not suggesting we have the youngest, just that our list is improving.

There is no doubt we need succession plans for Neitz and White. We have Dunn, Newton and Garland on our list as developing tall forwards. We need to address White longevity. If I know this you can bet your bottom dollar CAC does.

[Whispering_Jack 28,001]

There is no doubt we need succession plans for Neitz and White. We have Dunn, Newton and Garland on our list as developing tall forwards. We need to address White longevity. If I know this you can bet your bottom dollar CAC does.

This is an issue that I think is an important one for the club. I raised it at the Demonland/Demonology sponsorship meeting and while Craig acknowledged it, he wasn't as concerned as I am.

Three years ago, we didn't have a player 30 years and over. We're getting to a stage where we now have several abnd, as DH pointed out, if they all happen to retire at once, we could be in a position whereby we're going to have to make a large number of changes to our list all at once. I think this could expose us somewhat - especially if it happens in a year when the draft pool is not strong. As for ruckmen, we know it takes a long time to develop good ones and therefore the planning needs to be longer term.

In terms of your clock theory, we might fall over the precipice and end up at 3am before we know it.

[grazman 6,480]

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.

Essendon 93-2000 , 2 premierships in eight years and only dropped out of the finals in two of those eight years.

The clock doesn't work for me, because for me the analogy is wrong. Time is constant, it doesn't stop or go backwards according to poor decision making, it can't be accelerated because of some miscalculation. It's an abstract concept, but one that is bounded by certain laws. How do you have 16 clubs whose chronographs are dependent on each other, but somehow working on different principles.

For me its simple, players retire or get delisted, new players are traded in or drafted. When you have enough good players who play for the team then you'll have a shot.

BTW I saw nothing to suggest that the Swans list in five years time won't still be strong. They have a lot of reasonable unknown juniors courtesy of their expanded rookie list. Basically they get twice the opportunity to find a Nathan Carroll or Aaron Davey as clubs like Melbourne do.

[Slartibartfast 15,800]

The clock doesn't work for me, because for me the analogy is wrong.

Do you think lists improve and/or decline?

Do you think our list is improving or in decline?

Do you think Adelaide's list is improving or in decline?

Do you think lists have a "cycle"?

Would you have called Brisbane's list young or old (improving or in decline) in 2005?

Do you think it would have been reasonable for Melbourne to trade an early draft pick this year for a player who was (say) 27 or 28 and provided something we needed over the next 2 years? Was it appropriate to trade for Pickett?

Would it be appropriate for every team to make such a trade? Should Carlton have traded for Akermanis?

These are rhetorical questions....

I reckon the difference between us Graz is we expect the clock to do different things. At least there is no groupthink here!!

[Whispering_Jack 28,001]

There's a lot of questions there and despite them being rhetorical, I'll have a crack at a few of them.

Do you think lists have a "cycle"?

Yes they do but not in the form of cycle that you can universally compare all teams with like a clock face because a clockface is one dimensional and this discussion has shown there to be several dimensions to measuring where your list happens to be at. I'd be delighted to have a dozen 23 year olds all with Chris Judd's ability but no two 23 year olds in the competition are alike and there's only one Chris Judd.

Would you have called Brisbane's list young or old (improving or in decline) in 2005?

Brisbane has been a club in decline since 2004/5 and it had less to do with the structure of the list than with -

(i) the personal interplay between the coach and some of the players,

(ii) salary cap issues,

(ii) a bad run with injury and

(iv) the failure of some of its prized recruits to come to the fore as quickly as was originally anticipated.

Do you think it would have been reasonable for Melbourne to trade an early draft pick this year for a player who was (say) 27 or 28 and provided something we needed over the next 2 years?

I know I'm sounding like a broken record but I would have tried to get a top line ruckman with 4 to 5 good years in him for a second rounder because, as you know, I'm not satisfied that we're doing enough to cover the situation with Jeff White. The rule changes pertaining to ruckwork and the passing of time have reduced his effectiveness from the time he made All Australian (2004?) until now. He's getting very close to the end of his career and I'm not convinced that our other ruckmen can step into his shoes and be competitive against the best ruckmen in the competition (although I look forward to tomorrow night to see how The Russian, PJ and possibly Shane Neaves go in White's absence).

The draft wasn't likely to provide us with a ruckman fitting our selections so if we wanted another ruckman then, we needed to trade. But, as CAC explained, it would have been difficult to trade for another ruckman during the 2006 trade period. The pool of potential ruckmen from other clubs wasn't that particularly strong and the good ones might be asking why go to a club and play second fiddle to White for a couple of years and also compete with Mark Jamar for the understudy's position?

I wouldn't have traded a second round selection as Sydney did for Spida Everitt.

[grazman 6,480]

Do you think lists improve and/or decline?

Do you think our list is improving or in decline?

Do you think Adelaide's list is improving or in decline?

Do you think lists have a "cycle"?

Would you have called Brisbane's list young or old (improving or in decline) in 2005?

Do you think it would have been reasonable for Melbourne to trade an early draft pick this year for a player who was (say) 27 or 28 and provided something we needed over the next 2 years? Was it appropriate to trade for Pickett?

Would it be appropriate for every team to make such a trade? Should Carlton have traded for Akermanis?

These are rhetorical questions....

I reckon the difference between us Graz is we expect the clock to do different things. At least there is no groupthink here!!

Nope. but, then I don't think they are rhetorical questions either Fan (sorry I'm being difficult I know). I don't think the answers are self evident - they are open to interpretation. I agree that there is a certain cyclical nature to a list - which depending on your recruiting can keep you up or down- and I believe our list now is strong, but whether it is getting stronger will be dependent on whether player like Bate and Dunn will be better players than Neitz and White. Like I said the clock doesn't work for me because time is constant and doesn't move backwards. Did Schwab get it wrong at the Hawks by believing in the clock? Well I think they got it wrong because they didn't get the best out of their players and recruited some duds. So here is a problem to mull over?

Is the "premiership clock" simply an elaborate hoax perpetrated by coaches to deflect supporter expectations?

(and yes I believe that any new coach needs time to implement his regime - but list development - well bad recruiting choices are always going to hurt clubs long term - and it demonstrates more than ever the need for clubs to invest more and more time, effort and money into selecting the right kids)

[Slartibartfast 15,800]

(and yes I believe that any new coach needs time to implement his regime - but list development - well bad recruiting choices are always going to hurt clubs long term.

I once thought that the success of a playing list depended on having depth to cover injuries. But I was put right by someone smart who said it's not your depth that makes you strong, but your top (say) six.

I now believe that when talking premierships this is absolutely right and is the major weakness we have had for ages. We don't, and haven't for a while, had any stars (with respect to Neitz who I consider an absolute champ, but not a star).

Without getting long-winded I reckon its pretty self evident that stars generally come from your early picks. Bartram is a great pick, Brock is much better. Both are CAC triumphs. Bartram will probably be a good longterm player. Brock could be a star.

My theory works something like this. Good recruiters mean that clubs don't go through a pronounced cycle. They don't go as far down the ladder as others and don't get the very early picks. Their chance of picking up stars decline and their cycle will mean they oscillate between a narrower band than most, (say) 12th and 4th. That's not the object.

It's particularly relevant to a club like Adelaide. They have a lot of stars. McLead, Goodwin, Ricciuto, Hart, Smart, Edwards (I know some of these players have left) were/have been around for decades and have limited how far Adelaide fall.

If my theory holds up we will see a very weak Adelaide outfit in a few years. They are very much at 2.00 on the clock.

Graz you would probably argue that this is one of the reasons the clock is a myth. I'd argue it's a distortion that needs to be understood when looking at the clock.

[Demonland 65,380]

I now believe that when talking premierships this is absolutely right and is the major weakness we have had for ages. We don't, and haven't for a while, had any stars ...

You're right there but you don't necessarily have to be an early draft pick to be counted as a "star". Dean Cox is a "star" and he came from the rookie draft. IMO Jared Rivers is on his way and he was pick #26. Bartram was a late round draft pick as a bottom age player. Perhaps had he not be drafted at the end of 2005, he might have been top 10 at the end of 2006.

[Rogue 585]

How do you support the proposition that Melbourne's list is young? Statistically, we have a list that's close to the oldest in the competition. We do have some very good young players who will be improvers but most of the other clubs have more good young players with potential than we have.

I think it would be more correct to say that we have some good young players whose development will improve us as a club in 2007 but in the medium term we have some rebuilding to do.

But what happens if the careers of all of our 30 year plus players end at roughly the same time? Are we going to face a dliemma then in that we have too many holes in our list to fill in a short space of time?

Interesting discussion. After the '06 season I created a thread that asserted that while we could be optimistic about the forseeable future, I didn't think our flag 'window' was in the next couple of years. We may have more than our fair share of elder statesmen, but I don't think too many of them are crucial to our success...

Neitz (aged 32 in 2007)

McDonald (31)

Bizz (31)

Brown (31)

White (30)

Ward (30)

Pickett (30)

Holland (30)

Yze (30)

Robertson (29)

Nicholson (29)

Compare this to the guys at the other end of the spectrum (22 or under last year):

Sylvia

Jones

McLean

Bate

Bartram

Moloney

Rivers

Bell

Chris Johnson

Dunn

PJ

Warnock

Newton

Buckley

Neville

James Frawley

Ricky Petterd

Colin Garland

Isaac Weetra

It can be easy to be blinded by potential at times, but I feel that provided we find/develop a bona fide key forward to take over from Neitz we'll only be a stronger team. The ruck division seems a concern, but it does seem that White is now past his best. Apart from that I think that while we have some great MFC servants departing over the next few years, we should be able to fill the gaps and strengthen our team. Our midfield potential is most exciting, with JMac to exit while McLean, Jones, Moloney, and others continue to develop.

[Jaded No More 58,071]

Our midfield potential is most exciting, with JMac to exit while McLean, Jones, Moloney, and others continue to develop.

Don't think we'll be saying goodbye to Junior just yet, at least I hope not.

He was super impressive last night, considering he got no help in the middle. He is one of those rare players who gets better as they get older. The way he so selflessly throws himself at every contest is a real joy to watch (if only everyone was like that *cough* Yze).

No, he isn't the best kick in the world, and he doesn't have Davey-like speed, but the sort of consistency and hunger that he gives us is priceless. I'm thrilled that he's finally been given a role in the leadership group, as he has a lot of positive traits to teach the boys.

*End Junior Appriciation* :D