Optimist Prime

A few years ago, before we headed on the road that was 2011 and a(nother) annus horribilis, I wrote about the fact that our number and level of players in the prime of their career is far inferior to even middling sides.

I have a 70 games/23 year of age threshold but will make exceptions in the case of Grimes, Hannebery, et al.

Melbourne (13): Davey, Jamar, Rodan*, Byrnes*, MacDonald, Sylvia, Dunn, Clark, Jones, Garland*, Dawes*, Frawley, and Grimes*.

For comparisons sake...

NM (12): Harvey, Petrie, Firrito, Wells, Thompson, McMahon, Swallow, Thomas, Anthony*, Goldstein*, Hansen*, and Ziebell*.

Richmond (20): Tuck, Newman, Edwards*, King, Foley, Maric, Chaplin*, Jackson, Knights*, McGuane, Lonergan*, White, Deledio, Nahas*, Grigg*, Houli*, Edwards, Riewoldt, Rance*, and Cotchin.

Hawthorn (16): Lake*, Guerra, Osborne, Mitchell, Burgoyne, Sewell, Gibson, Hale, Hodge, Lewis, Roughhead, Franklin, Birchall, Ellis, Rioli, and Whitecross*.

St Kilda (17): Hayes, Milne, Blake, Fisher, Kozzie, Riewoldt, Montagna, Dempster, Jones, Dal Santo, Schneider, Ray, Gwilt, Gilbert, Armitage*, Geary*, and McEvoy*.

Sydney (20): Goodes, Bolton, O'Keefe, Shaw, Mattner, Richards, LRT, Grundy, Malceski, McVeigh, McGlynn, Mumford, Morton, Tippett*, Jack, Smith*, Kennedy, Bird*, Jetta*, and Hannebery*.

* New to team or new to prime of their careers.

Bolded players are midfielders or players that run through the midfield at times.

Analysis:

It is quite startling to see 4 players in their 'prime' that happen to run through the middle and Rodan is definitely on his last legs (touchwood he doesn't ruin his legs again).

NM have only 12 players that meet the criteria but half of those run through the middle. Tigers, Hawks, and Saints have 9, and the Swans have 11.

It should be a humbling thing to read for all of us and remind us that this will take time. And that is with 5 of the 13 being from other clubs. North have zero recycled players in their prime, the Tigers have 8, the Hawks have 5, the Saints have 4, and Sydney has 9.

We need to be patient but we also need to bring in players from other clubs to have an immediate impact.

2013 is going to be a struggle at times.

Nice analysis mate.

As usual its clear to see that our midfield needs a leg up with a star or two (trhoguh trade of FA)

At the risk of turning this thread in to a sh!t fight (someone has to do it I suppose - happens to every thread these days!), at what stage does Dean Bailey get excused for how we are travelling, and have travelled in the past 5 years? I'm quite sure for 2 of the seasons he was in charge tha twe had the youngest list in the AFL. All of a sudden, we have Neeld in charge yet we should accept that as his excuse/reasons for poor performance?

I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but I will always feel that Bailey cops more than what he deserves on here, and this thread is why I feel that way.

Nice analysis mate.

As usual its clear to see that our midfield needs a leg up with a star or two (trhoguh trade of FA)

Is there no reason we can't develop them, or are you saying we have failed in that in the terrible past and we will in the future....you can't keep trading, you want players to start at 18 and still be there at 28...I believe we have turned the corner, Rodan is there for the next couple of years to teach/protect/play/provide cover etc.....but I think we can develop Blease, Howe, Viney, McKenzie, Toumpas, Evans etc into a decent midfield in the next couple of years led from the front by Nathan Jones

At the risk of turning this thread in to a sh!t fight (someone has to do it I suppose - happens to every thread these days!), at what stage does Dean Bailey get excused for how we are travelling, and have travelled in the past 5 years? I'm quite sure for 2 of the seasons he was in charge tha twe had the youngest list in the AFL. All of a sudden, we have Neeld in charge yet we should accept that as his excuse/reasons for poor performance?

I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but I will always feel that Bailey cops more than what he deserves on here, and this thread is why I feel that way.

Dean Bailey said it himself, it's hard to come back from a 186 thrashing.

Dean Bailey said it himself, it's hard to come back from a 186 thrashing.

Sorry Jarka, but what has that got to do with my post?

RP has rightly pointed out the list of "senior" players, or players in their prime. Compare those names to what Bailey had that met the same criteria. In terms of the amount of players, I'd imagine it was very similar, but in terms of leadership, Bailey had sh!t. He sacrificed his coaching record so that the team could be rebuilt through the draft. He still had the same amount of "juniors" that needed experience, they just never had the luxury of "protectors" such as Clark, Rodan, Dawes, Byrnes (the latter 3 all having premiership experience), and the likes of Jones, Frawley, Garland and Grimes were "kids" themselves back then.

Neeld's playing the inexperience card, and we are expected to play along with it. The hand Bailey had to play with was far worse than what Neeld has got, hence why I think it's unfair the criticism that DB cops on here. But, as I said, I'm happy to be persuaded to feel differently (I understand the fitness levels were 2nd rate with Bailey).

Sorry Jarka, but what has that got to do with my post?

RP has rightly pointed out the list of "senior" players, or players in their prime. Compare those names to what Bailey had that met the same criteria. In terms of the amount of players, I'd imagine it was very similar, but in terms of leadership, Bailey had sh!t. He sacrificed his coaching record so that the team could be rebuilt through the draft. He still had the same amount of "juniors" that needed experience, they just never had the luxury of "protectors" such as Clark, Rodan, Dawes, Byrnes (the latter 3 all having premiership experience), and the likes of Jones, Frawley, Garland and Grimes were "kids" themselves back then.

Neeld's playing the inexperience card, and we are expected to play along with it. The hand Bailey had to play with was far worse than what Neeld has got, hence why I think it's unfair the criticism that DB cops on here. But, as I said, I'm happy to be persuaded to feel differently (I understand the fitness levels were 2nd rate with Bailey).

Just adding to the discussion mate, but the reality is that a lot of our older platers wanted to leave whilst under his guidance.

At the risk of turning this thread in to a sh!t fight (someone has to do it I suppose - happens to every thread these days!), at what stage does Dean Bailey get excused for how we are travelling, and have travelled in the past 5 years? I'm quite sure for 2 of the seasons he was in charge tha twe had the youngest list in the AFL. All of a sudden, we have Neeld in charge yet we should accept that as his excuse/reasons for poor performance?

I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but I will always feel that Bailey cops more than what he deserves on here, and this thread is why I feel that way.

Yes, our midfield has been pedestrian for a few years but...

Bailey, and the club, was far too focussed on youth.

We brought in far too many kids and when we pushed aside seasoned bodies we did not replace them.

MacDonald, Meesen, and Campbell were the only players with any AFL experience brought in by Bailey and CC during the 4 years.

Tha is a staggering statistic. And they did not bring in mature players with Bail, Jurrah and Nicholson being the oldest at 20.

Neeld and Craig have already brought in Sellar, Clark, Dawes, Rodan, Byrnes, Gillies, and Pedersen with varying degrees of AFL experience, and Magner, Couch, Jones, Terlich and Clisby as mature age recruits from state leagues.

That is 12 players. In two off-seasons.

So, you might say that as a club, we are transforming.

Yes, our midfield has been pedestrian for a few years but...

Bailey, and the club, was far too focussed on youth.

We brought in far too many kids and when we pushed aside seasoned bodies we did not replace them.

MacDonald, Meesen, and Campbell were the only players with any AFL experience brought in by Bailey and CC during the 4 years.

Tha is a staggering statistic. And they did not bring in mature players with Bail, Jurrah and Nicholson being the oldest at 20.

Neeld and Craig have already brought in Sellar, Clark, Dawes, Rodan, Byrnes, Gillies, and Pedersen with varying degrees of AFL experience, and Magner, Couch, Jones, Terlich and Clisby as mature age recruits from state leagues.

That is 12 players. In two off-seasons.

Not disagreeing RP, but I wouldn't count Magner, Couch, Jones, Terlich or Clisby, but you're right, Bailey focused all his recruitment on youth, where Neeld has mixed the two. Time will tell if that is the right way to do it, I sure bloody hope so!

I would like to know if Bailey ever had the opportunity to spend $800k on established key forwards though. These are the sort of things I mean when I say that I can be talked in to the Bailey criticism.

So, you might say that as a club, we are transforming.

{Autobots} Let's roll..

Sorry Jarka, but what has that got to do with my post?

RP has rightly pointed out the list of "senior" players, or players in their prime. Compare those names to what Bailey had that met the same criteria. In terms of the amount of players, I'd imagine it was very similar, but in terms of leadership, Bailey had sh!t. He sacrificed his coaching record so that the team could be rebuilt through the draft. He still had the same amount of "juniors" that needed experience, they just never had the luxury of "protectors" such as Clark, Rodan, Dawes, Byrnes (the latter 3 all having premiership experience), and the likes of Jones, Frawley, Garland and Grimes were "kids" themselves back then.

Neeld's playing the inexperience card, and we are expected to play along with it. The hand Bailey had to play with was far worse than what Neeld has got, hence why I think it's unfair the criticism that DB cops on here. But, as I said, I'm happy to be persuaded to feel differently (I understand the fitness levels were 2nd rate with Bailey).

I don't know if he is playing any card - we are bad.

Bailey always played the 'get games into kids' card and it was the wrong tack and probably the wrong track.

You can't do everything with kids and while I appreciate that 2009 was a special year of failure as success - it doesn't mean he couldn't have brought players in at the end of 2007 or for the beginning of 2010 when these kids needed help.

So, you might say that as a club, we are transforming.

I would say correcting fours years of error hardtack

And we were short of good seasoned players when the DB fiasco started in 2008.

ON lots of levels I think KS would have been a far better choice.

But that is past tense.

We now have to endure another year or two to get back to where we should have been at the start of 2011

Not disagreeing RP, but I wouldn't count Magner, Couch, Jones, Terlich or Clisby, but you're right, Bailey focused all his recruitment on youth, where Neeld has mixed the two. Time will tell if that is the right way to do it, I sure bloody hope so!

I would like to know if Bailey ever had the opportunity to spend $800k on established key forwards though. These are the sort of things I mean when I say that I can be talked in to the Bailey criticism.

Getting Clark was a great surprise that we all wonder over but getting in hardened bodies is not just possible good practice - it is proven.

You can't do everything with kids and that will be the 2nd verse in the Book of Bailey after that fateful day down at Mordor.

Of course the club's direction at the time might not have allowed the more extravagant recruits, but Bailey has got to shoulder some of the blame for the fact that we had a huge rebuild in 2008 and 2009 AND our average age still dropped in 2010 and 2011.

Get the best kids in and give them help. The best clubs do it. We spent 4 years not helping them.

I would say correcting fours years of error hardtack

And we were short of good seasoned players when the DB fiasco started in 2008.

ON lots of levels I think KS would have been a far better choice.

But that is past tense.

We now have to endure another year or two to get back to where we should have been at the start of 2011

He's making a Transformers pun.

Great comments about Bailey's recruiting model compared to Neeld's.

Did I read somewhere (possibly not, im a little mental) that the Collingwood vs Brisbane game on the weekend that only had 4 bounces around the ground?

Maybe with the game changing like this and the new interchange caps Bailey was just 3 or 4 years ahead of the rest in recruiting "athletes" more than the nuggety "football" type that Neeld prefers.

Great comments about Bailey's recruiting model compared to Neeld's.

Did I read somewhere (possibly not, im a little mental) that the Collingwood vs Brisbane game on the weekend that only had 4 bounces around the ground?

Maybe with the game changing like this and the new interchange caps Bailey was just 3 or 4 years ahead of the rest in recruiting "athletes" more than the nuggety "football" type that Neeld prefers.

Could you imagine if that turned out to be right?

Knowing our luck, it will, and Cale Morton will become the prototype for the 2015 and beyond elite player.

If we were any other team, I'd say no chance. But you have to allow for the possibility just because of who we are. For we are the Demons: Fate's [censored].

Not disagreeing RP, but I wouldn't count Magner, Couch, Jones, Terlich or Clisby, but you're right, Bailey focused all his recruitment on youth, where Neeld has mixed the two. Time will tell if that is the right way to do it, I sure bloody hope so!

I would like to know if Bailey ever had the opportunity to spend $800k on established key forwards though. These are the sort of things I mean when I say that I can be talked in to the Bailey criticism.

Do we need to rehash the past and make comparisons. That time has gone. Perhaps the criticism is unfair but as Bailey said after 186, "It is what it is." AFL coaches know where the buck stops and expect to carry the can for bad performances.

Can we just move on and focus on what is looking like a more promising year? It's too early to be making judgements about Neeld. At this stage he's proven nothing more than he has drawn a line in the sand when it comes to expectations. If this helps change a dysfunctional culture he will have achieved more than Bailey did in four years. If he doesn't win some games over the next couple of years he will go the same way as Bailey. That's life as an AFL coach.

Let's get back to the original discussion which I believe was about the need for some patience while we continue to build the list.

GO DEES!

I don't know if he is playing any card - we are bad.

Bailey always played the 'get games into kids' card and it was the wrong tack and probably the wrong track.

You can't do everything with kids and while I appreciate that 2009 was a special year of failure as success - it doesn't mean he couldn't have brought players in at the end of 2007 or for the beginning of 2010 when these kids needed help.

RP, what were the alternatives to playing the kids? Who were the likes of Scully, Trengove and Watts keeping out? Frequent senior failures like Miller, Warnock, Bate?

Great comments about Bailey's recruiting model compared to Neeld's.

Did I read somewhere (possibly not, im a little mental) that the Collingwood vs Brisbane game on the weekend that only had 4 bounces around the ground?

Maybe with the game changing like this and the new interchange caps Bailey was just 3 or 4 years ahead of the rest in recruiting "athletes" more than the nuggety "football" type that Neeld prefers.

Deeko, this was always something I considered when watching The Bailey Way ©. He was constantly criticised for not implementing the press, just because Collingwood, St Kilda and Hawthorn did it so well, and most followed. I have no doubt Bailey was trying to create something that was different, just like Thompson did at Geelong, but we never got to see it consistently due to the state of the list. We got a glimpse during "that" Sydney game, but when it came to hard, tough footy, our kids were too light and were easily bullied.

Do we need to rehash the past and make comparisons. That time has gone. Perhaps the criticism is unfair but as Bailey said after 186, "It is what it is." AFL coaches know where the buck stops and expect to carry the can for bad performances.

Can we just move on and focus on what is lookinig like a more promising year? It's too early to be making judgements anout Neeld. At this stage he's proven nothing more than he has drawn a line in the sand when it comes to expectations. If this helps change a dysfunctional culture he will have achieved more than Bailey did in four years. If he doesn't win some games over the next couple of years he will go the same way as Bailey. That's life as an AFL coach.

Let's get back to the original discussion which I believe was about the need for some patience while we continue to build the list.

GO DEES!

Sorry Crawf, I'll go back to talking about racists, druggos and who I'm going to make my supercoach captain shall I?

It's a footy conversation, on a footy forum.

Great comments about Bailey's recruiting model compared to Neeld's.

Did I read somewhere (possibly not, im a little mental) that the Collingwood vs Brisbane game on the weekend that only had 4 bounces around the ground?

Maybe with the game changing like this and the new interchange caps Bailey was just 3 or 4 years ahead of the rest in recruiting "athletes" more than the nuggety "football" type that Neeld prefers.

Like the post Deeko - good discussion points

My counter-argument and what I beleive, is that with less interchanges contested 1 v 1 footy will be still very important as less players will be getting to contests. You will still need blokes that can win the footy not just a pure athlete. But in saying that recruiting stratagies will change...

Sorry Crawf, I'll go back to talking about racists, druggos and who I'm going to make my supercoach captain shall I?

It's a footy conversation, on a footy forum.

Please yourself. I thought I was suggesting we talk about what the OP was suggesting rather than dredging up the past. Whatever...

So, you might say that as a club, we are transforming.

The more we Jazz up our list, the greater the Shockwave we will send through the competition. This ain't no Mirage. We're about to go on the Prowl to begin the Red and Bluestreak.

RP, what were the alternatives to playing the kids? Who were the likes of Scully, Trengove and Watts keeping out? Frequent senior failures like Miller, Warnock, Bate?

Well, we played one of those far too soon...

But I don't mean that you don't play your best talent (although you make them work to get games) but you don't waste your time on projects that just distract resources and give false hope. Martin, Gysberts, and Morton fall into that category and we have recruited to replace them with a 25 year old from NM who can actually play as a target, and for the other two take your pick of the 29 year old from PA, the 25 year old from Box Hill, the 23 year old from SA, or the willingness to keep the 28 year old wearing 28 and the 26 year old wearing 14.

Our list was far too young, it got young too quickly, and the powers-that-be did not look to improve it in the two years they absolutely should have - 2010 and 2011.

But, as intimated, this is a side point.

The real point of the thread is for supporters to realise we are not in a position to compete in this league until we get more players in their prime in our midfield.

Well, we played one of those far too soon...

But I don't mean that you don't play your best talent (although you make them work to get games) but you don't waste your time on projects that just distract resources and give false hope. Martin, Gysberts, and Morton fall into that category and we have recruited to replace them with a 25 year old from NM who can actually play as a target, and for the other two take your pick of the 29 year old from PA, the 25 year old from Box Hill, the 23 year old from SA, or the willingness to keep the 28 year old wearing 28 and the 26 year old wearing 14.

Our list was far too young, it got young too quickly, and the powers-that-be did not look to improve it in the two years they absolutely should have - 2010 and 2011.

But, as intimated, this is a side point.

The real point of the thread is for supporters to realise we are not in a position to compete in this league until we get more players in their prime in our midfield.

I beg to differ. We will be more competitive than last year by a long way. We've seen this in the NAAB Cup games. There's a decidedly harder edge to the structure. I think we have the capacity to cause some upsets along the way this year. I'm sure we will have a considerably better year than 2012. As the year progresses and we get games into the team they will begin to function more effectively and we'll surprise a few. I agree with your premise that we need more players in their prime but I don't think it precludes us from starting the year on an optimistic note.

GO DEES!