Slartibartfast

See my Hawthorn thread comments and the timing, Snap!

I've seen the replay. Jones was good. In fact I think he was very good when you take into account that he is a second year player, he was one of our two inside mids on the night and he was against Hodge, Mitchell and Crawford. Franky I've seen your comments on Bell here and elsewhere. I've a mate who said before the game that he really wanted Belly to succeed. He'd canned him all last year. Bell kept Williams to one possession for no result in the first half. He canned Bell at halftime. Bell plays in the back line and will be beaten by opponents on occasions. He'll get tackled with the ball and he'll make mistakes. But he beat a very good opponent on Sunday. If you want to look at the negatives you'll never see his strengths because he does the hard things. He leaves his man to help team mates (this led to Williams second goal), he'll try and pick the best option. He'll go into a pack and fight for the ball. And when you do that you open yourself up for mistakes. You're probably more impressed with the "give it to me" tactics of Daniel Ward and Adem Yze. Ward won't make many mistakes because he'll never go where there is any pressure. He'll just leave his man, run up the ground, turn it over and hope to hell Belly holds the backline together as he sees his man running free. And lets not start on Yze. If you hated Belly's game you must have just about shot Carroll. Dropped chest marks, poor disposal and brainless free kicks given away. Belly will aways give you things to criticize, thank heavens.

Thanks for trying everyone.

I don't. I expect him to become a team player. I think Robbo is now doing an Yze. He's playing for hiimself. Neitz isn't a ground level player either, but he chased, tackled, crumbed a goal and looked interested when he didn't have the ball. I'm worried about Robbo. I think that there is a danger he may not be a regular this year. He's capable of winning you a game or two but he's got to be more. I think there could be a few challenging for his spot. Brocky I accept Robbo is no O'Keefee. But he needs to be a lot more than a one trick pony. It's a good trick but he doesn't play it often enough. I hope he comes good, but there are a few worrying signs.

Jumps for the ball and get in Neitz way all the time. Run into the space Neitz would lead into. Goes for the specie all the time, falls to ground and fails to apply any forward line pressure. Never runs up the ground "O'Keefee" style. The defensive side of his game is nothing short of pathetic. Adds nothing at ground level. Missed some easy goals he has to get if he wants to be a dangerous player Other than that I thought he was ok.....

Does anyone have a link to the stats from last nights game? Thanks to anyone who can help.

As I've said in another thread, and I'm surprised this point has only be made once; we didn't lose because of gameplan, we lost because of fitness. We actually thrashed them when we had the legs to play the "run and carry" game. I was pleased to see how successful it was when we were fit enough to play it. And we will get much better at it. And it gives us an extra string to our bow. These are practices matches for the good clubs and should be treated as such. And we did. Liked Buckley, Frawley, Dunn, CJ and Belly. Very disappointed with Robbo, Miller, Rivers, Carroll and Yze. Don't hold any hopes for Hughes and Warnock. Thought of the fringe players only Brown did himself any favours. Thought Jamar was the dominant ruckman against mediocre opposition. I think everyone has overrated Jones game, but I'll watch the replay and keep an open mind.

People who think that the "run and carry" play lost us the game really miss the point. This is the point. When we had the legs to implement the "run and carry" game, all be it pretty ordinarily at times, we pantsed them. It was only when we ran out of legs we got beaten. To summarize, it was not the gameplan that let us down, it was our fitness. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good [censored] session. Hawthorn are focusing on the NAB GF. We are focusing on the one in September. They are a month ahead of us in preparation. I liked most of what I saw last night.

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.

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!!

Fantastic news Josh, congratulations. Look forward to catching up. Cheers Tim

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.

He's fantastic. So good in traffic, such good vision and great skills.

I understand everyones desire to know the injury status of players. I have it myself. But I also understand that players my want to keep their injuries private. Jarad Couch did last year and good on him. There are lots of reasons not to give out details of injuries and IMO privacy is the main one. I don't like it but I understand it.

And when Pratt puts money into Carlton do you expect them to do what he said? People paying the bills have a right to be involved in decision making. North's choice seems quite simple. Become financially independent or move.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No problems from my point of view. It's like the third umpire in cricket to the extent that it's an effort to get umpires to make better decisions. I'm glad I'll be there to see how it goes. Nothing ventured nothing gained Brocky!!

I'll state upfront that I've not read all of this thread but I do feel the comments I've seen on Newton are premature and extreme. Many here will know that I am excited about this kid but have always seen him as a longterm speculative investment. He has loads of talent but he also has trouble stringing games together. Application is a problem. Now he played poorly on Tuesday, but he hasn't been that bad in the first two match simulations. He hasn't shone either. He's entering his third season with us. He was taken as one of the youngest players in the 2004 draft. He's not yet 20. Yes, be disappointed, but also be realistic. He'll take time. He won't be ready this year. He contracted and he's got this year at minimum to show what's he's got. And Finks, don't lose the passion, but try and keep some perspective. <_<

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.

Thanks Kev, I didn't know. This from the article "Godfrey missed first two weeks of the pre-season after an operation to clean up bone spurs in an ankle that became "a nuisance" towards the end of last season. He also underwent surgery on his wrist." I'm not sure missing the first 2 weeks would effect Godders all that much given he's one of the fittest blokes at the club.

Rhino I think Bizzell will be one of the first selected, as will Brown. We must use the NAB Cup to evaluate the merits of these players and whether they are past their used by date or not. Weetra and Hayes will not play IMO. Their time is definately in front of them. We know where they stand. We don't know about Bizzell and Brown. BTW, I don't know why Godders needs a gallop. AFAIK he's had an uninterupted preseason.

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.