The Changes

2013 Off Season

Rodan, Sylvia (RIP), Magner, Tynan, Gillies, J MacDonald, Sellar, Davey, Davis, Taggert, Couch, Stark

2014 Off Season

Frawley,  Byrnes, Clark, Blease, Strauss, Nicholson, Evans, Barry, Tapscott, Clisby, Georgio

2015 Off Season

Toumpas, McKenzie, Howe, Jamar, Bail, Fitzpatrick, Cross, Riley

Additions

2013 Off Season

Salem, Tyson, Cross, Michie, Vince, Kennedy-Harris, Riley, Hunt, Georgio, Harmes, King

2014 Off Season

Lamumba, Brayshaw, Stretch, Frost, Newton, Petracca, O-Mac, ANB, vandenBurg, White, Garlett

2015 Off Season

Oliver, Melksham, Weideman, Hulett, Bugg, King, J Smith, Kennedy, Wagner

Overall

So 3 good players along with 2 others who gave good service replaced by 4 top players along with 8 players who gave (or have given) very good service

So in my view, if a club can add 2 or 3 good players year on year, the list ends up in contention and then continues to remain in contention

But you don't want to have a year or 2 where you miss out completely

Adding an A grader every year is a big ask though.  But free agency, trading up in the draft or trading for a gun is entirely possible.  One star added every 2 years is not a bad ratio

Fast forward to 2024 and we continue to build a good list but we have to now deal with injuries halting our progress to more success.  So good depth in all the positions is all-important. 

In the 2023 off-season the recruiting team addressed our forward line issues but it remains to be seen how that will turn out

So our starting point now is the confidence that we can win more games than we lose

And you go from there

And most of us can remember numerous seasons where we didn't know where our next win would come from

Edited January 30, 20241 yr by Macca

Is this thread in relation to some other thread? I'm confused.

New coach aggressively turns over a bad list is hardly a shock.

For reference; just from a head count of drafting we turned over 29 players in three years, 2007-2009 - I can't make the effort to check exact list changes and player trades but obviously there are a few more to add there.

Roos' credibility bought the club confidence and time to enact a cultural turnaround that even an identically capable coach without the established reputation could not have done. He could make the hard calls firmly and he could look brilliant young draftees and their families in the eye and say 'You are getting the support that will help you grow, and together we are going to rise provided you do as I say.'

Niether Bailey nor Neeld had that power and both were tripped up constantly by other 'leaders' at the club enthusiastically second-guessing everything. Plus the intense supporters which the players would have interacted with would have had brought their own atmosphere of uncertainty no matter how much they tried for the stiff upper lip.

It is kind of incredible to think that even though Simon Goodwin is our breakthrough premiership coach with a Demon win rate exceeded only by the greats Hughes, Chadwick and Smith, I'd still say he has a way to go before he could be considered an equal to Roos.

I think a second premiership would do the trick though. And then a third while managing a changing of the guard just to prove the point.

10 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

New coach aggressively turns over a bad list is hardly a shock.

Depends on the quality of the coach and whether the new coach is in for a long rebuild.  Or has the capacity to know how to rebuild

Making hard calls is part of it too.  Some coaches are best suited to coaching an established list.  Brought in to win big

And it should be remembered that the thinking amongst many of our supporters was that the list wasn't all that bad (easier to just blame Dean Bailey (RIP) & Mark Neeld)

And not long after Dean Bailey was dismissed, he remarked that the list had premiership potential

We now know that can't have been true but we had any number of first and 2nd round picks on the list that many thought would end up being good players ... again, that didn't happen so Roos comes in and culls the list

14 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

For reference; just from a head count of drafting we turned over 29 players in three years, 2007-2009 - I can't make the effort to check exact list changes and player trades but obviously there are a few more to add 

Over that time we got rid of a lot of experienced players.  And I believe that we left ourselves short on experience as a result

Too many young blokes and not enough wise-heads is the wrong balance.  We could have at least brought in some experience as Roos ended up doing (Lewis, Vince, Cross, Tyson, Melksham etc) 

2 hours ago, Macca said:

 

And most of us can remember numerous seasons where we didn't know where our next win would come from

Unfortunately true 'Macca'...

Thought this was going to a a Ben Brown thread 🤣

I thought it was going to be a thread about north Melbourne 

4 minutes ago, BDA said:

I thought it was going to be a thread about north Melbourne 

Legit.

Still half unsure what's the main point of this thread considering all bottom 4 clubs will go through huge list during their development phase...

The original title of the thread started off with 'Paul' Roos so there's that

And the content serves to highlight how poorly run we were as a club prior to Roos coming on board especially with regards to recruiting (which to my eye, is far and away the most important aspect of a club)

Also, how well run we are these days where our recruiting is fantastic

We've gone from a massive fail to at least 8.5/10 ... and that doesn't happen by accident

However, the content also highlights how easily a club can slip back if we don't continue on the path of building a great list - ongoing

I started the thread because someone here mentioned that we didn't add any good players to the team last year but we did ... McVee, JVR, Hunter & Grundy.  McVee & JVR could be better than good whilst Hunter must be doing something right if he keeps getting a game in a top 4 team ... he could use the ball better but he did have 538 disposals last season

Grundy is gone off course but the point stands and we may well add a decent player to replace him (in a year or 2)

So the thread is about recruiting good players and how we go about it (part of that is not having blind faith in one way of recruiting) 

For instance, free agency can be our friend but doesn't get talked about a lot

Adding an A grade player every couple of years or so is very important and that's why I believe we pursued Harley Reid but couldn't quite get the deal done

Edited January 30, 20241 yr by Macca

50 minutes ago, Macca said:

The original title of the thread started off with 'Paul' Roos so there's that

And the content serves to highlight how poorly run we were as a club prior to Roos coming on board especially with regards to recruiting (which to my eye, is far and away the most important aspect of a club)

Also, how well run we are these days where our recruiting is fantastic

We've gone from a massive fail to at least 8.5/10 ... and that doesn't happen by accident

However, the content also highlights how easily a club can slip back if we don't continue on the path of building a great list - ongoing

I started the thread because someone here mentioned that we didn't add any good players to the team last year but we did ... McVee, JVR, Hunter & Grundy.  McVee & JVR could be better than good whilst Hunter must be doing something right if he keeps getting a game in a top 4 team ... he could use the ball better but he did have 538 disposals last season

Grundy is gone off course but the point stands and we may well add a decent player to replace him (in a year or 2)

So the thread is about recruiting good players and how we go about it (part of that is not having blind faith in one way of recruiting) 

For instance, free agency can be our friend but doesn't get talked about a lot

Adding an A grade player every couple of years or so is very important and that's why I believe we pursued Harley Reid but couldn't quite get the deal done

Really good post / thread and thanks very much for it.  I think it's easy to forget how we got in the position we are today, and the people that helped us along the way.  Also easy to forget is the people (and structures) that got in the way.  I maintain that Cam Schwab should still be tied to a goal post at the MCG for every fan to have a running shot at. The way he undermined the coaches and tried to make the club all about him still irks me, as does the fact that we had 8+ on the board in 2013 while Hawthorn had 4-5 (and were winning flags). 

BUT - we've learned from all that now and have the structures and mindset to adapt to the changing game (and league), and build a winning club and team.

7 minutes ago, D Rev said:

Really good post / thread and thanks very much for it.  I think it's easy to forget how we got in the position we are today, and the people that helped us along the way.  Also easy to forget is the people (and structures) that got in the way.  I maintain that Cam Schwab should still be tied to a goal post at the MCG for every fan to have a running shot at. The way he undermined the coaches and tried to make the club all about him still irks me, as does the fact that we had 8+ on the board in 2013 while Hawthorn had 4-5 (and were winning flags). 

BUT - we've learned from all that now and have the structures and mindset to adapt to the changing game (and league), and build a winning club and team.

To me the messaging from many on this site right now are the straight sets exits in the last seasons.  It's there, it's prevalent and many are quite frustrated at the outcomes that we witnessed

But to me the issues are technical, not above the shoulders.  If it was about the mindset, we might have dropped off with our attack on the ball, our 2-way running, the defensive mindset, our zone defence etc etc

We simply fell down with the connection to the forwards from the mids, the quality of the forwards and our kicking for goal ... and all that can be fixed

Yze & Stafford didn't cop enough heat either.  The default move to blame Goodwin only ignores the bigger picture

I've a feeling that we may well go medium/tall in the forward line because that's where we have better numbers in terms of personnel 

Meanwhile, we may well have had another season where we've recruited well ... we don't know yet but the additions of Tholstrup, Windsor, Fullarton, McAdam, Billings etc could well pay off. Interesting that 4 of the 5 can play forward and who knows with Windsor? 

5 hours ago, Macca said:

To me the messaging from many on this site right now are the straight sets exits in the last seasons.  It's there, it's prevalent and many are quite frustrated at the outcomes that we witnessed

But to me the issues are technical, not above the shoulders.  If it was about the mindset, we might have dropped off with our attack on the ball, our 2-way running, the defensive mindset, our zone defence etc etc

We simply fell down with the connection to the forwards from the mids, the quality of the forwards and our kicking for goal ... and all that can be fixed

Yze & Stafford didn't cop enough heat either.  The default move to blame Goodwin only ignores the bigger picture

I've a feeling that we may well go medium/tall in the forward line because that's where we have better numbers in terms of personnel 

Meanwhile, we may well have had another season where we've recruited well ... we don't know yet but the additions of Tholstrup, Windsor, Fullarton, McAdam, Billings etc could well pay off. Interesting that 4 of the 5 can play forward and who knows with Windsor? 

I do understand the frustration of going out in straight sets, but I'm still more upset by the years 2007-2017, and so anythin better than that is like the Swiss flag (a big plus).

If we kicked straight against the Pies it would have been 18.8, not 8.18 (I think) - which would have won us the game.  Poor kicking is poor football.  I agree on the point around Stafford in particular, in many ways it feels like the forward line is the forgotten child behind defense and the mids.

1 hour ago, D Rev said:

I do understand the frustration of going out in straight sets, but I'm still more upset by the years 2007-2017, and so anythin better than that is like the Swiss flag (a big plus).

If we kicked straight against the Pies it would have been 18.8, not 8.18 (I think) - which would have won us the game.  Poor kicking is poor football.  I agree on the point around Stafford in particular, in many ways it feels like the forward line is the forgotten child behind defense and the mids.

The thread was not designed to highlight how poorly run we were back then, but more so on how well run we are now

Especially with regards to recruiting.  Of the 31 that went over that 3 year stretch, roughly 26 gave very little service to the club in terms of output.  That's the harsh reality even though I'm sure they all tried their best

That's how poor our recruiting was prior to 2012

Normally, when that many leave a club over a 3 year stretch, there's a fair smattering of players who have given good service or who are looking for greener pastures through lack of opportunity

And as @Little Goffy pointed out, nowadays we keep adding good players without losing good players to retirement as yet.  That will happen eventually as Brown & T-Mac are nearly done but May & Gawn will go on for at least 2 more years you'd imagine

Jackson leaving was a bit of a blow but we picked up 3 draft picks and were able to move up in the draft to attain Tholstrup.  It remains to be seen with Jefferson but Windsor looks a fine prospect

So we're in great hands and we've come a long way and we have a very good list of players

Can anyone imagine saying such a thing half way through 2013?  

So it's not so much looking back in a morbid way, more so acknowledging a very bright future

And at the same time a timely reminder how a club can slip up and lose sight of what is needed

If a club can continually add 2 good players to an already strong list year by year, that club can remain in contention.  So you don't need 4 or 5 good players added, just 2 (that therefore allows for 2 good players leaving or retiring) 

 

Edited January 31, 20241 yr by Macca

To me, as much or more than recruiting is player development. We had a number of really good players come in during the dark years but there wasn't the training/ support/role models/ whatever, and they just didn't kick on. It is totally different now and I think Roos was instrumental in that. Good recruits are given body development, excellent role models, and time to develop. That also encourages them to stay.

I think the recruitment of Daniel Cross showed the value and importance of good role models.

Why are some people questioning the creation of this thread? Macca has introduced a footy-related discussion on a footy forum. I don’t see a problem. 🤷‍♀️ 

Thanks @Macca our journey back to relevance started with Roos. He was clear on what was expected/required. Here he discusses some ‘not-negotiables’ which were criteria for the ‘Roo cull’ https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/paul-roos-savages-melbourne-players-for-shocking-errors-20140330-zqors.html

 

 

26 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Why are some people questioning the creation of this thread? Macca has introduced a footy-related discussion on a footy forum. I don’t see a problem. 🤷‍♀️ 

It's a positive message too on how far we have come as a footy club in a relatively short space of time 

The rise started with the recruiting and the overhaul of the list.  By the end of 2016 we were on the cusp of finals and of course 5 years on from that 2013 off-season we did play finals and won 2 finals.  A bit of a setback in 2019 but 2 years later the premiership

But what excites me the most is the ongoing recruitment.  I've got mates who follow teams that won heaps of flags and the question I've always asked them was how many good to top players they had during those flag years

The answer was always 16+ often up to the whole 22+ ... and that's what it takes

So our team having that many good players is not something we've seen very often.  I rate coaching, admin and Board stability as well but to me it's always been about levels of talent and how many

So from here on in I expect the list to get better and better and the only issue we should have are salary cap contraints (a nice problem to have) 

 

Footnote:  Old mate Dave tells me that during the Smith era we regularly had 3-5 quality players not getting a game

Now that's what I'd like to see as that creates competition within the ranks (again, a nice problem to have)

Edited January 31, 20241 yr by Macca

2 minutes ago, Macca said:

It's a positive message too on how far we have come as a footy club in a relatively short space of time 

The rise started with the recruiting and the overhaul of the list.  By the end of 2016 we were on the cusp of finals and of course 5 years on from that 2013 off-season we did play finals and won 2 finals.  A bit of a setback in 2019 but 2 years later the premiership

But what excites me the most is the ongoing recruitment.  I've got mates who follow teams that won heaps of flags and the question I've always asked them was how many good to top players they had during those flag years

The answer was always 16+ often up to the whole 22+ ... and that's what it takes

So our team having that many good players is not something we've seen very often.  I rate coaching, admin and Board stability as well but to me it's always been about levels of talent and how many

So from here on in I expect the list to get better and better and the only issue we should have are salary cap contraints (a nice problem to have) 

 

Footnote:  Old mate Dave tells me that during the Smith era we regularly had 3-5 quality players not getting a game

Now that's what I'd like to see as that creates competition within the ranks (again, a nice problem to have)

A wonderful problem to have. Lord knows, it’s a “problem” we want to always have. Overlapping levels of talent and development is key. Along with, as you say, coaching, admin and Board stability. 

2 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

A wonderful problem to have. Lord knows, it’s a “problem” we want to always have. Overlapping levels of talent and development is key. Along with, as you say, coaching, admin and Board stability. 

Salary cap constraints can mean that you have to let a player or 2 go but if you get draft capital coming back then you can top up the talent with top class draftees that are on the minimum salary

So it is possible to stay at the top

But you have to be smart about it as the playing group can be tight and departing a well liked player can be problematical and upset the culture

But again, we're not there yet but it would be a great problem to have

I've also been told over the years that Norm Smith's aim was to be 5 goals better than every other team in terms of talent.  And by the looks of it, he succeeded exceedingly well!!

Footy has changed dramatically over the years but many of the same principles still apply, Civ

48 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Why are some people questioning the creation of this thread? Macca has introduced a footy-related discussion on a footy forum. I don’t see a problem. 🤷‍♀️ 

Exactly. Just unnecessary. I like travelling down memory lane, makes you appreciate our flag win more and where the club is today, a lot more better than back then! The foundations of our success were built during this time, thanks for the thread @Macca

12 minutes ago, Lexinator said:

Exactly. Just unnecessary. I like travelling down memory lane, makes you appreciate our flag win more and where the club is today, a lot more better than back then! The foundations of our success were built during this time, thanks for the thread @Macca

Not everyone is going to like the topic of a thread or indeed the content of a thread, Lex

Each to their own

The threads I've started have nearly always been a bit left of centre but are designed to make people think a bit sideways

The last 2 threads I started were about the drafting process and outcomes along with the other being an in depth view on our inside 50 forays in the 2021 GF (that one was hard work!)

So I view the sport from a technical viewpoint much like I view test cricket or the NFL

But it's a very tribal game and we don't like losing.  And we often don't react well to losing

For instance, the umpires are often seen as the bigger enemy especially in a close loss

And the Maynard incident will never be forgotten.  We all want revenge but from my point of view the best way to enact revenge is to beat the Pies, fair & square

That way you hold your head up and win with class.  And make no mistake we can beat them but we need a better game plan in order to beat them

And that's where it gets technical

 

Footnote: If someone was to 'accidently' run through Maynard the next time we play them, I'm not going to mind

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Why are some people questioning the creation of this thread? Macca has introduced a footy-related discussion on a footy forum. I don’t see a problem. 🤷‍♀️ 

Because there’s not actually anything to discuss and I still can’t work out the contention. 

I enjoy the level of self indulgence but I have nothing to add. I’m delightfully stumped. 

22 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Because there’s not actually anything to discuss and I still can’t work out the contention. 

I enjoy the level of self indulgence but I have nothing to add. I’m delightfully stumped. 

I'm not surprised you don't get it as your way of posting is quite confrontational and you rarely prefer to discuss matters in a mature manner

You're the shock-jock of demonland but each to their own. It takes all types and I'm all for free speach

So how you post doesn't particularly bother me nor do I ever learn much from your utterings

You like to stir the pot and if you don't see yourself that way, I'd be surprised

As for being self indulgent 

Pot Kettle Black