Loading up - Topping Up

[SENsei]

Today's Age article by Caroline Wilson has me a little stumped. Her surprise at the fall from grace of the Western Bulldogs is perplexing, for history will tell you that when teams think they are 'this close' (thank you Maxwell Smart), they fall for the trap of 'topping up' and then bang, down they go.

Recent history is littered with such examples:

Richmond - finished 3rd in 2001 was it? Then pick up Paul Hudson, Adam Houlihan and one other that escapes me. They've taken it to a whole new level though with recent pick ups of Trent Knobel & Kent Kingsley, whilst letting go David Rodan.

Adelaide - Gary Ayres thought he had it. Surely Wayne Carey and Ronnie Burns could get them over the line. Surely.

Kangaroos - only now is Laidley seeing the error of his hays...err ways. Jon Hay, Kasey Green....

St Kilda - Ackland, McGough....GT thought we needed depth. Should've gone depth through the draft not depth through other's castoffs.

Now the Western Bulldogs - Highest placed Vic team last year so let's get a reject in McDougall and a proven performer at the end of his career in Akermanis. And now let's wonder why we have fallen into the same trap.

Look at West Coast. The only recycled player I can think of is Steven Armstrong, who is fringe at best, but is still a young player. All others are into the team from recruiting. Rosa, Priddis, Hurn.

Go the quick fix at your own peril. Trade week will give you a good indication towards next year's falling teams.

[LennyBoy]

Look at West Coast. The only recycled player I can think of is Steven Armstrong, who is fringe at best, but is still a young player. All others are into the team from recruiting. Rosa, Priddis, Hurn.

Stenglin.

[Dan Warna]

they made a play for headcase, they got chick and stenglein, both on big big wages.

as for saints 'topping up' till this year, all our top up players I think were under 22?

[SENsei]

My definition of recycled is a player not wanted by their previous club. Stenglein left of his own accord. So did Chick. The original club didn't want to let them go.

Akermanis - not wanted by Brisbane
McDougall - up for trade by West Coast
Ackland - not wanted by Port
McGough - delisted by Collingwood

My determination is based on players effectively 'rejected' by their previous club, not wanting to leave.

It's not a perfect science, because in isolation there will be success stories. Ted Richards being one. But overall throughout the AFL, it hasn't really worked in my view.

[Dan Warna]

fair call on McGough. It always irritated me when Mcgough was selected. I thought fair call on developing him in the magoos but wasn't good enough for selection in the seniors. Given his age I thought he might turn into a fair player eventually as he was a precocious talent. At the time I copped abuse for being critical of mcgough

pretty much the rest of the trades at the time I agree with, not that JB/GT or the board cared what I think

ackland was a required player at Port I thought at the time.

[joffaboy]

Look at West Coast. The only recycled player I can think of is Steven Armstrong, who is fringe at best, but is still a young player. All others are into the team from recruiting. Rosa, Priddis, Hurn.

Stenglin.

Cancel

[saintsRrising]

My definition of recycled is a player not wanted by their previous club. Stenglein left of his own accord. So did Chick. The original club didn't want to let them go.

Akermanis - not wanted by Brisbane
McDougall - up for trade by West Coast
Ackland - not wanted by Port
McGough - delisted by Collingwood

My determination is based on players effectively 'rejected' by their previous club, not wanting to leave.

It's not a perfect science, because in isolation there will be success stories. Ted Richards being one. But overall throughout the AFL, it hasn't really worked in my view.

Agree...that has been my theory...and recruiting criteria for a while.

If another club has puta line through a players name,,,,then you have to really question why we can do better....






Fiora it would seem, is going to be an exception....though ironically due to the Black walk out he was more forced on us than us picking him!!!

[B W and R all over]

In fairness to North, the Nathan Thompson trade looks to have paid off.

As for J.Hay, well that was a debacle right from day one.

[saintsRrising]

ackland was a required player at Port I thought at the time.

No

[st_Trav_ofWA]

they made a play for headcase, they got chick and stenglein, both on big big wages.

as for saints 'topping up' till this year, all our top up players I think were under 22?

i seems caro isnt doing her research
chick was at hawthorn
stengline was at the crows not to mention
sirra from us
prior from essendon
merenda from richmond
plus the plays they tried to get
headcase
gasper

and how would that explain the other grand finalist for the past 2 years in Sydney ?
they love the cast off players and were a bee's dick away from back to back flags

silly story with no real relevance

[Dan Warna]

hay, rawlings and croad were the basis of an awesome defence.

we now know a mixture of drug abuse, injury, depression, motivation, bad planning and management by the hawks and stupid big money saw that blown out of the water.

the hawks defence is suspect, they would probably like hay and rawlings back, in form, motivated and mentally well.

[meher baba]

SENSaintsational, I normally like your stuff, but this argument is a load of garbage.

If the Ted Richards example isn't enough to undermine your point, what about Brent Guerra playing for Hawthorn or Brad Ottens playing for Geelong? All clubs pick up recycled players from time to time: look at how well we've done with Grammy (and even the much loved by many - but not by me - Attard is a recycled player).

I don't think that the recruitment either of Aker or McDougall is the main reason that the Dogs missed out on the 8 this year. Aker has had a reasonably good season for them IMO: not at his Brownlow-winning best, but that's a pretty high standard to expect him to maintain.

The key problem faced by the Dogs since at least 2005 is that, while they have fast and exciting midfielders and running backs, they don't have enough talls around the ground. They have also had some injury problems leading into the second half of the season: partlicularly the key Gilbee. Remember, they missed out on the 8 in 2005 and only just got in in 2006. They won't be far out of it this year. They probably aren't getting any worse but, until they can get some decent talls, they aren't going to get any better.

And, as we all know, quality tall players of any type usually take the longest to develop and are usually jealously guarded by the clubs that have them. McDougall was a reasonable punt at a top-up tall: what else were the Dogs meant to do? Darcy's comeback hasn't worked out, and the trade market at the end of last season wasn't abounding with talls (other than Gardi, but I don't think any club could handle recruiting Gardi and Aker in the same season!!!)

As for your comments about Ackland and McGough: are you just stirring or do you really believe that, if we had passed them up and recruited draftees with picks 33 and 49 at the end of 2004, we'd have had a premiership by now? If so, what are you smoking and can I have some?

[goodie]

St Kilda - Ackland, McGough....GT thought we needed depth. Should've gone depth through the draft not depth through other's castoffs.

That draft was a disaster overall, we overlooked Wood for McQualter (I like Mini, but I considered passing on the best ruckman in the draft for yet another midfielder as bad an idea then as it appears now), picked up Ackland and McGough, who surprise surprise are no longer with us, and Gwilt. Still too early to call on Gwilt, but either way it wasn't Beveridge's finest moment.

Question is did Thomas influence our passing on Wood?

[Dan Warna]

doggies have also been raided of some quality talls and injuries.

Chris Grant, and outstanding player has barely been fit for 3 seasons, clearly one of the best talls at CHB, CHF, FF, a few yips but no worse than loewe or Reiwoldt.

Luke Penny who was going to be a 250 game FP, first raided by us (he wanted to play finals) They were REALLY cut about that and sadistically pleased his career was cut short with injury, not much different from carlscum happy at Hamills injuries.

Nathan Brown, folks here wanted us to make a 500k play for him. and the doggies were pleased his career has been hampered with severe injuries. Darcy has been struggling with injuries and they have had a couple of ruckmen retire prematurely with injury (I forget their brownlow medal winning ruckmans name) as well as their replacement FB who retired early with crippling leg injuries.

Footscray/doggies have had a mixture of injury woes, and trading difficulties.

And the Veale Trade has come back to haunt them IMO.

[saintsRrising]

look at how well we've done with Grammy ?

Gram wanted to leave..was not rejected.


Attard was rejected......but was taken as a rookie....which is a fair enough way to trial a recycled player.....as would be the PSD or a very late pick.

You need to balance what the upside is vs cost of aquisition.



With Ottens....I think that there is a difference betweena player who has showed some consistent good football...but then declined (McG, basically just had the one good game..)....and GOPs who were rejected.

Gardiner for eaxmple was to me an ok risk because of the upside.

ie risk vs potential reward

A recycled GOP is alot of risk....so you do not want to pay much for them if you give one a go.

A player that has exhibited real talent overa period, but who is out of sorts...is wortha higher price as the potential reawrd is more. You still need to think long and hard about why you think you can makea difference though.


The Cats gambled with Ottens and it has paid off for them.



So me a key is issue is price........which is in large part what good drafting is all about....getting the best value for your picks.

[SENsei]

SENSaintsational, I normally like your stuff, but this argument is a load of garbage.

As for your comments about Ackland and McGough: are you just stirring or do you really believe that, if we had passed them up and recruited draftees with picks 33 and 49 at the end of 2004, we'd have had a premiership by now? If so, what are you smoking and can I have some?

Overlooking the insults, and your opinion is your opinion, mine is mine.

If you read my posts, you will see that I made allowances for individual success stories and it not being an exact science.

My main point is the change in mind set.

"We're this close, we just need to load up to have a tilt." Then they seem to forget all the things they did well to get them to that point in time.

You don't have to take my word for it, just look at the historic examples.

But hey, I'm not going to argue about it. Opinions are like noses, we all have one....except for Lord Voldemort.....

[meher baba]

SENSaintsational, I normally like your stuff, but this argument is a load of garbage.

As for your comments about Ackland and McGough: are you just stirring or do you really believe that, if we had passed them up and recruited draftees with picks 33 and 49 at the end of 2004, we'd have had a premiership by now? If so, what are you smoking and can I have some?

Overlooking the insults, and your opinion is your opinion, mine is mine.

If you read my posts, you will see that I made allowances for individual success stories and it not being an exact science.

My main point is the change in mind set.

Sorry if I offended you, but I wasn't trying to insult you personally: if I had been trying to do that, you'd know about it I can assure you.

I appreciate what you are saying about mindsets, but I always get worried when a club like the WCE (or, from a few more years ago, the Lions) is held up as a shining example of how a list can be built and maintained without a lot of trades.

The fact is, as I have been saying for a long time, Victorian clubs are up against it when it comes to building lists. The WA and SA clubs have the opportunity to develop a number of rookies in the local leagues and then elevate the ones who turn out to be good enough to fix weaknesses in their lists. The northern states clubs have the opportunity to spend more $$ on their lists so can be more patient with fringe players than the Vic clubs can afford to be.

Hence, the Vic clubs are typically much bigger traders than the interstate clubs. Some are a bit more patient: Geelong (despite Ottens) springs to mind, and maybe the Bombers to some extent. Others are less so. But the fact of the matter is that, since 2000 - which is aeons ago in AFL time - no Victorian clubs have won a flag, whatever they have done with their lists. Once we see one succeed (perhaps Geelong this year), then we'll have some idea of what the others should be doing.

[Dan Warna]

brisbane didn't trade?

the got a couple of players from the merger, for which they then used to trade.

pike, lynch, Kray jnr come to mind easily as traded players.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

I'd just like to clarify before I disagree strongly with something that I may have incorrectly inferred without the implication having been intentional.

Is this discussion based around an opinion that the Western Bulldogs have gone backwards because of going for a "top up" approach?

I think one of the inherent things that has taken the dogs backwards this year is simply their success last year, and other teams being better prepared to play them and their style. Having gameplans built around negating half back runners and outriders, and hitting back with as much tall power as possible.

I agree with you about Wilson's take being at least as surprising as Eade's statement (I agree with Eade's statement, and think it's very bold of him to say it - there's a hole on the list (talls) that cannot be covered by the excellent quality of their smalls.) but while I enjoy the discussion around trading/drafting (especially while it's minus the obligatory b4e post stating the same old opinions as fact), I don't want to paint anyone into an opinion they don't have just so i can disagree with it.

[vacuous space]

My main point is the change in mind set.

"We're this close, we just need to load up to have a tilt." Then they seem to forget all the things they did well to get them to that point in time.

I don't think we belong with the other groups there. We picked up McGough who was 20 and Ackland who was 22. We picked them up in the draft rather than trading for them because otherwise we would have had to delist two more senior players and pick up two more players after Gwilt in what has turned out to be the worst draft this decade. We traded for Brooks (19), Gram (20), Guerra (21), Penny (21) and Watts (20) in other years. They were hardly moves that were designed to put us 'over the top'.

[SENsei]

I take on board all the comments, although I disagree with some.

My opinion is that St Kilda do belong in the same group.

My reasoning again comes back to the 'mind set' argument. Putting aside the strength of drafts, interstate teams (valid point mind you) and the actual draftees themselves....if you look at the bigger picture, what sort of message are you sending when you go for the 'top up' approach?

This is opinion only, but if you think you are close enough, could you not sub-consciously relax? Could the players think "here's Aka, he's a champ, he'll get us there" then bang, it all goes pear shaped.

St Kilda pick up some fringe back up players, sending the message that we are almost there. Do they then think it is a job nearly done?

Does drafting to 'top up' take into consideration that your guns are getting older, that they may not be able to replicate the form that got them to the previous heights? That they may need some pressure from within to continue to perform?

I don't know, I'm no expert, and I may be clutching at straws. But to me, history shows this approach does not work.

Stick with the process that got you there in the first place.

[vacuous space]

Stick with the process that got you there in the first place.

Each year we picked up a slightly more mature player or two who would be able to push for selection a little sooner:

2001: Black, Knobel
2002: Brooks, Penny, Powell
2003: Gram, Guerra, Sam Fisher
2004: Ackland, McGough, Fiora
2005: Watts, Rix

I don't see any sudden change in strategy. To me, GT was very consistent in picking up players who were young enough that they could put in 5-10 years for the club if they made it. There wasn't any topping up, just an effort to recruit from all available sources.

[Dan Warna]

of that lot on penny (injury - ret), powell (injury - ret) mcgough (perceived to be not good enough) are not on a senior list.

[SENsei]

Stick with the process that got you there in the first place.

Each year we picked up a slightly more mature player or two who would be able to push for selection a little sooner:

2001: Black, Knobel
2002: Brooks, Penny, Powell
2003: Gram, Guerra, Sam Fisher
2004: Ackland, McGough, Fiora
2005: Watts, Rix

I don't see any sudden change in strategy. To me, GT was very consistent in picking up players who were young enough that they could put in 5-10 years for the club if they made it. There wasn't any topping up, just an effort to recruit from all available sources.

This thread was more about other teams than St Kilda, but we do digress!

2004 and 2005 - 4 out of 5 were rejected by their previous club. Ackland, McGough, Fiora & Rix (in Rix's case several clubs over the years).

Arguably, prior to that (01 to 03) there was only Powell that was a reject of sorts given he couldn't come to contract terms with Melbourne. Brooks was a young reject I guess. Penny left the Bulldogs. Watts left Adelaide. Both were wanted. Guerra wasn't wanted but because of behaviour, not talent, so I can excuse him, and haven't mentioned him before as a reject. Gram lacked opportunity. Not sure where Sam Fisher fits in with this discussion. Black was a voluntary trade. So was Knobel looking for opportunity.

We'll go around in circles as we all see it differently. It's what makes the world go round.

[meher baba]

At least this thread isn't full of endless abuse of Demetriou, Anderson, Fremantle club, Jeff Farmer, etc, etc.

So thanks for starting it SENSaintsational.