McQualter goes for next draw

[saintsRrising]

Herein lies the key argument. At what age do you project he's going to make this improvement?

If he was 18, and had, say, four years to get it right, then fair enough - he'd have ten years ahead of him of strong footy.

But at 24 - .

Yes 2008 would seem to bea make or break year for several players..

Clinton Jones Name Matthew Ferguson
St Kilda Saints Team St Kilda Saints
6 Career Games 10
South Fremantle Origin Heyfield
February 2, 1984 Date of Birth October 1, 1984
23yr 9mth Age 23yr 1mth
183cm Height 187cm
83kg Weight 85kg
6 2007 Games 2

[bigred]

I dont think Lyon was a big fan of Mini to be honest.

There were a couple of times this year where he went nuts at him in the huddle.

I think he struggled to play as a tagger.

Good luck to him though. Should have a strong VFL career, and it would not surprise me if he was picked up by another club.

I dont see it as a massive loss though.

CJ is another topic all together and most posts in regards to him on this thread are opinions formulated from stat sheets and viewing the few games that he has played. You have no idea of his attitude, work ethic and general outlook.

I dont think I have seen someone cough the ball up more since a very young Jayson Daniels.

Perhaps Lyon can see him filling a specific role and believes he still has a chance to fill it.

I think he had the same idea with Mini, but decided that his time was up.

Who is more deserving of the spot on the list? Mini, with three years of fringe football under his belt, or CJ with one?

[Oh When the Saints]

Good post bigred, and you and others have hit the nail on the head.


Lyon hasn't made his decision based on a comparison of McQualter and Jones in a vacuum - because in terms of leadership, draft selection, youth and room for improvement, McQualter would have stayed.

Clearly in the context of what he feels he needs in the side, Lyon has decided that Jones is required ahead of McQualter (and others).

Jones performed admirably in his first match and his forward pressure was terrific. Perhaps Lyon sees a role for him in the forwardline, although the addition of Schneider might nullify this somewhat.


Only time will tell whether Lyon's decision was correct ... but that sort of call is obviously made with a clear plan in mind.

Hopefully the plan works.

[evertonfc]

we gave 5 years to brooks i think 2 for CJ is fair ?!?!

Fair enough; but we gave up so much to get Brooks that we wanted to give him every chance to prove his worth. Ironically, we never extend the same courtesy to Watts. I guess RL takes the view that he wasn't the one who gave up so much to get him, and therefore should be judged on other criteria. Fair enough, in a way.

I could have stomached things if CJ had been left on the rookie list to develop there, but I think he was too old? This means elevation or delisting, and to be honest, I'd rather have saved that spot for a kid with far more natural talent - like Darren Pfieffer, Clayton Collard or Cameron Faulkner. You're a better chance of turning one of them around then getting Jones to lift, I reckon.

Heck, even a few years of decent service from Stewert Dew, Jason Torney or Ian Perrie appeals more. That's saying something.

Lyon hasn't made his decision based on a comparison of McQualter and Jones in a vacuum - because in terms of leadership, draft selection, youth and room for improvement, McQualter would have stayed.

Clearly in the context of what he feels he needs in the side, Lyon has decided that Jones is required ahead of McQualter (and others).

Jones performed admirably in his first match and his forward pressure was terrific. Perhaps Lyon sees a role for him in the forwardline, although the addition of Schneider might nullify this somewhat.

Only time will tell whether Lyon's decision was correct ... but that sort of call is obviously made with a clear plan in mind.

Hopefully the plan works.

An optimistic post, but a fair point. Not much more to say.

Either Lyon & this forum will be proven correct, and I'll have to shout y'all a beer, or I'm applying for the list development role at the club in 2009

[Oh When the Saints]

But that's not the call Lyon has made evertonfc.

He's not looking at it in a vacuum of "how can we maximise this spot on the list?"

RL would be looking at Jones et. al. in terms of "who will best help me carry out my plan for this side? What do I need to implement what I want to do?"

Your statements are correct if you are rating the players against each other and attempting to make some sort of judgement about who to have in the 37th and 38th spots on the list.

But if you are Ross Lyon and want a certain player type to carry out your gameplan, then you are going to keep Clinton Jones ahead of Fergus Watts.

Cameron Faulkner

Spud of the highest order.

Less talented version of Michael Rix, except without the height, weight or kicking skill

[evertonfc]

But that's not the call Lyon has made evertonfc.

He's not looking at it in a vacuum of "how can we maximise this spot on the list?"

RL would be looking at Jones et. al. in terms of "who will best help me carry out my plan for this side? What do I need to implement what I want to do?"

Your statements are correct if you are rating the players against each other and attempting to make some sort of judgement about who to have in the 37th and 38th spots on the list.

But if you are Ross Lyon and want a certain player type to carry out your gameplan, then you are going to keep Clinton Jones ahead of Fergus Watts.

I think you're clutching at straws far too much on the 'plan' idea if your 37th/38th best players are seen as a real part of that plan.

Players in those slots shouldn't be central or even really periphery to your plan as they are - let's face it - very unlikely to carve out long-term AFL careers.

From about 35-36 onwards, forget the 'plan'. Just try and squeeze one or two players who can play out of that batch every year who can crack your best 25.

Your list will therefore improve, thus allowing your to better implement your plan for winning games of football.

The reason players are ranked at that level is because, by and large, they're not terribly good players, and therefore are unlikely to be a part of any plan for winning premierships. Convert one or two, however (like Sam Fisher), and you're giving yourself a huge boost.

Extending this 'plan' theory, OWTS - would you endorse the notion of drafting for best fit rather than best available?

Cameron Faulkner

Spud of the highest order.

Less talented version of Michael Rix, except without the height, weight or kicking skill

Nah - he's got a fair bit about him when injury free. Watched him a lot when he first came to the Dogs and he's got a lot of natural talent.

Great attitude and a great kid, but was squeezed out because the Dogs have too many players like him.

[riccardo]

RL would be looking at Jones et. al. in terms of "who will best help me carry out my plan for this side? What do I need to implement what I want to do?"

IF RL wants low quality, outside midfielders with poor footskills and even worse decision making, he's got the job done.

I can only assume his "plan" is then for us to suck.

[evertonfc]

RL would be looking at Jones et. al. in terms of "who will best help me carry out my plan for this side? What do I need to implement what I want to do?"

IF RL wants low quality, outside midfielders with poor footskills and even worse decision making, he's got the job done.

I can only assume his "plan" is then for us to suck.

When riccardo - the most rose-coloured Sainter I've met - says there's something wrong with a player...it doesn't bode all that well

You haven't wheeled a statement out like that since the days of Tim Elliot and prior to that, Lawrence Bingham.

[riccardo]

RL would be looking at Jones et. al. in terms of "who will best help me carry out my plan for this side? What do I need to implement what I want to do?"

IF RL wants low quality, outside midfielders with poor footskills and even worse decision making, he's got the job done.

I can only assume his "plan" is then for us to suck.

When riccardo - the most rose-coloured Sainter I've met - says there's something wrong with a player...it doesn't bode all that well

You haven't wheeled a statement out like that since the days of Tim Elliot and prior to that, Lawrence Bingham.

Maybe I was too harsh, but the comparison with Elliott is a good call!

[Spinner]

RL would be looking at Jones et. al. in terms of "who will best help me carry out my plan for this side? What do I need to implement what I want to do?"

IF RL wants low quality, outside midfielders with poor footskills and even worse decision making, he's got the job done.

I can only assume his "plan" is then for us to suck.

Correct.

All this talk about 'grand plans'....I dont think football is as complicated as that.

[bigred]

Unfortunately....

It is.

[rodgerfox]

I quite like Jones.

Didn't rate McQualter at all.


Anyway, it was interesting to note that in one of the draft articles on the weekend, the club said they were going to get 'the best available player' and not worry about the type of player we need.

That doesn't really fit in with the theory that Lyno is trying to build a particular type of team.

Sp perhaps he just thinks Jones is a talent.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

Correct.

All this talk about 'grand plans'....I dont think football is as complicated as that.

no offence but that may be why your a suporter like the rest of us and RL is a head coach ?

[evertonfc]

Correct.

All this talk about 'grand plans'....I dont think football is as complicated as that.

no offence but that may be why your a suporter like the rest of us and RL is a head coach ?

Jesus Spinner - I thought I PM'd you last week saying you are NOT allowed to have an opinion?

Consider this a warning.

perhaps he just thinks Jones is a talent.

Looks that way, doesn't it.

Let's hope he's right.

[saintsRrising]

I quite like Jones.


Anyway, it was interesting to note that in one of the draft articles on the weekend, the club said they were going to get 'the best available player' and not worry about the type of player we need.
That doesn't really fit in with the theory that Lyno is trying to build a particular type of team.

.

I think that is fair enough for the FIRST pick at 9......in this years draft (or even any years draft) as at this part of the draft there are marked differences in talent...so based on who the first 8 picks are you take the best available by you rating of who is left.



But with our latter & rookie picks.....the talent difference is not so much...so I would be very surprised if our later picks including rookies did not then take into account our current list structure including the No 9 pick.





With a young ruck (how good are Gardis feet????), FB and mids all on the shopping list that will cover who the best available player left 9 anyway....


....in my opinion of course.

[Oh When the Saints]

Ross Lyon isn't paid half a million bucks a year to sit down for 5 minutes on Friday night and think to himself:
"Mmm ... I wouldn't mind picking up a mid. I reckon next year it would be good if we kicked a few more goals, so I might go for a forward too".

He puts weeks and weeks into considering his list, working on his gameplan and tactics and deciding how best to carry those out with a view of winning a premiership. His analysis of opposition sides and their planning is reputed to be his strength.

Lyon would have worked out exactly the sort of gameplan that he believes will take this playing group to a premiership, and will be tinkering with the list to improve the extent to which that plan can be carried out.

Extending this 'plan' theory, OWTS - would you endorse the notion of drafting for best fit rather than best available?

First round pick IMO you draft for best available, although if two or more players are similar (which usually happens), then you go with need.

After that, IMO always draft for need. Unless you are rebuilding.

Why take 4 key forwards this year if they are all the best available player?

The current state of our list is such that we must win a flag with the 00/01 draft crop, and that gives us maybe 3-4 years. In such a situation, bringing some kids through (as we are doing) and drafting/trading for need is IMO what a club must do. Best available pretty much goes out the window.

[Oh When the Saints]

RL would be looking at Jones et. al. in terms of "who will best help me carry out my plan for this side? What do I need to implement what I want to do?"

IF RL wants low quality, outside midfielders with poor footskills and even worse decision making, he's got the job done.

I can only assume his "plan" is then for us to suck.

Correct.

All this talk about 'grand plans'....I dont think football is as complicated as that.

If football isn't as complicated as that, why does the club spend several million dollars each year on:
- 4 assistant coaches
- 2 development coaches
- 1 senior coach
- 1 football operations manager
- 2 recruiting managers



Maybe they can't find enough volunteers to collect the footballs after training ...

[Oh When the Saints]

riccardo, your argument assumes that Jones' negatives are required to make the plan function.

What if his positive attributes - his running ability and tackling - were what the coach was looking for?


After the Sydney game, most on here had Jones in the best players on the ground.

He struggled on his return from a broken collarbone in his 5th senior game.

Damn the man. Terrible offence. Should be hung, drawn and quartered, and then buried six feet under.

[Solar]

After that, IMO always draft for need. Unless you are rebuilding.

Why take 4 key forwards this year if they are all the best available player?

The current state of our list is such that we must win a flag with the 00/01 draft crop, and that gives us maybe 3-4 years. In such a situation, bringing some kids through (as we are doing) and drafting/trading for need is IMO what a club must do. Best available pretty much goes out the window.

see I disagree with this, you draft the best available and then trade and use the rookie list to fix up any areas. You can thoughts on what type of player (ie skillful, speed, fitness) which you value higher can help.

On faulkner I'm not sure why we would not look at this kid. Got great skills, can kick a goal. Is young enough to rookie I believe, got heaps of talent.

Have a look at CJ's game in round 22, just has not natural football sense, kicks it to the wrong side of forwards, does not read the ball very well and skills are basic at best.

[riccardo]

riccardo, your argument assumes that Jones' negatives are required to make the plan function.

What if his positive attributes - his running ability and tackling - were what the coach was looking for?


After the Sydney game, most on here had Jones in the best players on the ground.

He struggled on his return from a broken collarbone in his 5th senior game.

Damn the man. Terrible offence. Should be hung, drawn and quartered, and then buried six feet under.

Everyone mentions Jones for running ability - IMHO he is slow, far too slow for an elite midfielder. Tackling - I can give you that - at times - but there are other midfielders who can tackle just as well that aren't as poor overall as Jones is.

I have no clue what your first line is supposed to mean, maybe you could rephrase?

[evertonfc]

riccardo, your argument assumes that Jones' negatives are required to make the plan function.

What if his positive attributes - his running ability and tackling - were what the coach was looking for?


After the Sydney game, most on here had Jones in the best players on the ground.

He struggled on his return from a broken collarbone in his 5th senior game.

Damn the man. Terrible offence. Should be hung, drawn and quartered, and then buried six feet under.

Everyone mentions Jones for running ability - IMHO he is slow, far too slow for an elite midfielder. Tackling - I can give you that - at times - but there are other midfielders who can tackle just as well that aren't as poor overall as Jones is.

I have no clue what your first line is supposed to mean, maybe you could rephrase?

Mud sticks. But ironically, sometimes, compliments do too.

Is this how Clinton Jones became tagged as a quick player? Now it seems par for the course that he's pacy, but I can't say I've seen him ever produce anything resembling overly quick.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

just to clear up the speed issue on CJ
from what ive seen of him in the WAFL he is quiet fast when playing on instinct but in the AFL i think in an attempt to make the right decision with who to kick to hes slowed down a bit hence the looking like hes lost in the headlights it also puts him under more pressure as he hasnt got that extra second to think i feel with more time playing at the higher level we will see more of the pace as he tends to play on instinct again

[Armoooo]

riccardo, your argument assumes that Jones' negatives are required to make the plan function.

What if his positive attributes - his running ability and tackling - were what the coach was looking for?


After the Sydney game, most on here had Jones in the best players on the ground.

He struggled on his return from a broken collarbone in his 5th senior game.

Damn the man. Terrible offence. Should be hung, drawn and quartered, and then buried six feet under.

Everyone mentions Jones for running ability - IMHO he is slow, far too slow for an elite midfielder. Tackling - I can give you that - at times - but there are other midfielders who can tackle just as well that aren't as poor overall as Jones is.

I have no clue what your first line is supposed to mean, maybe you could rephrase?

Mud sticks. But ironically, sometimes, compliments do too.

Is this how Clinton Jones became tagged as a quick player? Now it seems par for the course that he's pacy, but I can't say I've seen him ever produce anything resembling overly quick.

I've been saying it for a while, he is nowhere near as quick as he is made out to be... he may do well on the track but he doesn't know where to go on the ground so any advantage that he would have is diminished...

[Oh When the Saints]

Clearly we disagree ... which is fine


One thing I will say .... if we are arguing/discussing Clinton Jones and Andrew McQualter types this frequently in 2008, then we are in deep s***.

'Cause at the end of the day, they ain't gunna contribute much towards a top four finish.

[evertonfc]

Clearly we disagree ... which is fine

One thing I will say .... if we are arguing/discussing Clinton Jones and Andrew McQualter types this frequently in 2008, then we are in deep s***.

'Cause at the end of the day, they ain't gunna contribute much towards a top four finish.

Hmmm - maybe it's a good thing?

I like that we're keeping pressure on the club to make sure every one of the players employed (effectively by our money) is worthy of their spot.

Even the players at the bottom of the scale - who may or may not be big names - require some scrutiny. Who knows, if you keep on a player who shouldn't be there, perhaps he's taking the place of the next Westhoff or Bartram?

Ultimately, I think we all agree that it probably won't matter *too* much about whether we should have kept Watts or McQualter instead of Ferguson or Jones.

We're talking about the very two last spots on the list here; however, it's my contention that for this club to suceed, it needs to develop at least a smattering of players with real talent and ability - read: to break into the top 25 - from the lower reaches of the list.

In short, I'm a bit frustrated with our inability to develop players, and especially annoyed when players who we gave up significant amounts for (Watts and McQualter - first round picks) aren't properly developed when other less potential-laden players are given a chance despite age (Jones) and repeated opportunites (Ferguson).

[/rant]