Why do we seem to think adding players is 'The Answer'?

[mjp]

Yesterday afternoon for me (evening for most) vs Freo kind of went how I expected it would.

Freo have been excellent all season long (except when it rains and there was little chance of that under the roof) and have beaten Geelong @ Geelong and Melbourne (when they were flying) @ the MCG. They have done it with a pretty cohesive plan that involves:

1/. Holding width in all contested situations.

Those at the ball go AT the ball - outside of that they circle the contest and make sure they are in position to release or defend the outside.

2/. Retain possession of the footy by foot (not dissimilar to Geelong 2021).

3/. Defend from IN FRONT and with numbers. Pearce et al are a good defensive group and are very focussed on separating their opponents from the ball.

In 2022, they have been better than us. It isn't really that close to be honest. But there is now all sorts of hand-wringing over the defeat and the continued calls for Lobb, Jones and goodness knows who else continue.

I don't think adding players is the solution. And I certainly don't think that replacing the coach who has led us to 50% of the Grand Finals our club has EVER played in is the solution. But there is no doubt whatsoever that 'we' have not been completely united in our approach this season. We have rarely - if ever - been 'BEATEN'...but we have fallen short over and again. We simply are not united as a group and are certainly are not all pulling in the same direction.

Watching Bevo he was clearly frustrated with the way we defended Freo's short kicking game. Ultimately (to me) the decision to try and defend their game-style with a zone cost us the game. But if Bevo was frustrated, he *MUST* have asked for a different approach...so - why were we in a zone.

Watching the mids, they were clearly frustrated with Naughton etc leading back towards the goal-square...you cannot do that against Pearce and Cox. But he kept doing it, and the kicks kept falling short. SURELY this frustration meant this issue had been discussed and practised during the week.

Watching the mids (again), they were frustrated at Freo's ability to essentially play 'like us' and chain handballs out of contested situations...but Freo repeatedly owned the outside which enabled this...the mids MUST have known this was Freo's plan but they seemed unable to adjust and counter.

Setting ALL of that aside, if Lobb isn't kicking bombs from the 50m arc (and criticise Cordy all you like but what exactly was he supposed to do??) then we win.

We played with effort and didn't give it up. But we didn't play TOGETHER.

I was not thrilled with the result (of course) but despite the sentiment on this board pre-game Freo are genuinely good and I thought our players tried pretty hard all night. But something is not right in our group. Whatever is happening with Hunter is probably part of it, the stories I hear of English only re-signing if he can play in the ruck would be part of it, the continuous Dunkley rumours would be part of it, the selection of a clearly out of form/condition Bruce would be part of it...I could go on (and if I did the next one would involve the words "Jack Macrae") but I'm not going too.

To paraphrase Al Pacino, "You win together but you die as individuals". I'm not sure what is wrong in our group right now but it is 'something'. Something isn't right. And adding another player or too - unless it is a player who is able to unify a group of players - is not going to fix it. And if you're looking for answers as to what is impacting on Bont's form, then this is it - as the skipper he would be TRYING to fix this...but whatever it is can't be fixed by punitive actions...something is WRONG. And unless we work out how to play not just with INDIVIDUAL pride but with Team Pride and love for our mates, then nothing will change.

We might beat the Giants next week (they are equally torn apart by issues like this) but we wont beat the Hawks in Tassie unless something happens 'soon'. It isn't about talent and it isn't about effort - but it is about the willingness to sacrifice for the person next to you, and the knowledge they would do the same for you!

[Grantysghost]

Great post MJP.

I blame myself, I showed ridiculous level of hubris, disrespected my opponent and I've let all woofers down.

I'll try and be better.

[DOG GOD]

Great post.

I too have said all along that something is up with the playing group and I’ve mentioned names like Hunter, Smith and Williams. Williams form has fallen off a cliff and I’m not suggesting anything but something just doesn’t feel right with him.
Hunter goes deep. No doubt about that. Our cohesion of TEAM play is gone. Has been majority of the year, and unless it is changed, then there won’t be change.

Will there be a clean out similar to 2017-18 ? Possibly.

[Grantysghost]

A serious response re Freo.

They played man on man as we were exiting defence.

Is this a normal tactic or something they cooked up for us?

I guess it was to stop our running game and it worked a treat.
Frustrated is the perfect verb in this context.

[azabob]

My concern is this type of problem won’t just disappear over summer.

Could the playing group actually be fractured with what happened during the GF? Blaming each other; defenders blaming the mids and vice versa for example?

[mjp]

They played man on man as we were exiting defence.

Is this a normal tactic or something they cooked up for us?

Freo load up on the exits from the edge of the centre square to the boundary - they 'take away' the easy exit kicks. If you want to try and lace one out in the corridor they sweat on those (usually a mid - most often Brodie or Acres who have size 'SITS' at the true CHB position) and dare you to take them on.

They did it last year as well.

[hujsh]

I think the answer to the question is because as outsiders we only really have a superficial understanding of what happens inside a football club. Its a big reason why your insight is so highly valued mjp (we'd still love you without that though don't get me wrong). Therefore since we don't know the messaging, the directions, the tactics overall, the tweeks we plan to make for specific teams, the headspace of individuals, the niggles players carry, the relationships between coaches, between players, between players and coaches, the roles different members have in our recruiting and drafting strategy and so on, we default to the most obvious examples of ways to improve the team which is adding a player we don't have in an area of need.

Adding Lobb won't change our approach in the middle or fix our zone, no individual player will, but it's harder to say what needs to happen to fix that. We can speculate and say the players are selfish or Bevo is stubborn or whatever we decide is the root cause but since we don't know it's harder to pretend we know the answer.

[Grantysghost]

Freo load up on the exits from the edge of the centre square to the boundary - they 'take away' the easy exit kicks. If you want to try and lace one out in the corridor they sweat on those (usually a mid - most often Brodie or Acres who have size 'SITS' at the true CHB position) and dare you to take them on.

They did it last year as well.

This is probably slightly off thread, but it is referenced in the OP.

I took a few photos at the game, I'm pretty much behind the goals at the moment so I get a good view of setups.

This is a great visual of what MJP is talking about re the differing defensive approaches. Plus I wanted to draw circles on them.

The top image, Walters has the ball on the defensive side of the western wing. You can see how the Dogs defenders are trying to zone to control the corridor and about 50 from the kick taker.

Fremantle all night were way too smart to fall into this trap, and used precise kicking to slice through the zone, I'm not sure why we didn't change things up. But we had a plan ! You can see all the loose Freo players that were generally hit up all night which killed us.

The second image the ball is in dispute in our back half (arrow locates it). Have a look at how the Freo guys setup. Everyone has a man, Darcy sits in the hole, players aren't sucked into contest (there's a couple of guys hunting the ball). It completely killed our running game, they basically squashed us. Those little hunter guys forced dump kicks and because they were so well setup we just couldn't get anything going.

Had a big say in the result I believe. Mission get Boyd has to start now :)

https://i.postimg.cc/4xb3f9yG/dogsfreo1.jpg (https://postimg.cc/k2GCwDWY) https://i.postimg.cc/rpfFW25Y/dogsfreo2.jpg (https://postimg.cc/d7TYPXH8)

[Danjul]

Good post, MJP.

You raised a number of points that have been problematic for quite a while.

I will confine my comment to your thread headline.

I didn’t want to go to the game (sometimes I just have to do as I’m instructed).

I didn’t enjoy it and I left the stadium angry at what was served up. Why? Because the game went exactly as expected.

We were beaten by a fairly ordinary team that simply stuck to the basics and worked together, displaying faith in each other to act as a reliable link by doing so standard things properly.

So to focus on a player we seem to be getting, Lobb.

I thought his general game was poor. In a team that was very careful with how they delivered the ball into the forwards he had only 7 possessions. ( less than JUH and Bruce, similar to Naughton). But he made them count with goals from low probability situations. He didn’t do much more than neutralise Naughton’s contribution.

I have read here that we want him as a forward/ruck. So I waited all game to watch his ruck work. Didn’t happen.

Why not? Because Freo knew our most important weakness, and they have seen others exploit it. They used two ruckmen against English, a bigger body and a jumper. They also knew we would have Bruce in the ruck and expected he would only get a couple of hitouts. You don’t waste Lobb in the ruck in those circumstances. You leave him in the forward line to get maximum benefits from the entries.

Freo had two more shots at goal than the Dogs and generally speaking they were from worse positions. It was a game we should have won (again).

We have not shown that we are capable of getting maximum value from the players we have. Any we bring in run the risk of joining the ‘Trengove’ collection.

[Axe Man]

They used two ruckmen against English, a bigger body and a jumper. They also knew we would have Bruce in the ruck and expected he would only get a couple of hitouts. You don’t waste Lobb in the ruck in those circumstances. You leave him in the forward line to get maximum benefits from the entries.

I didn't think the ruck had any real bearing on the outcome of this game. Correct me if I am wrong but in between cursing and shaking my head in frustration at how the game was going I thought most of the time I saw either Darcy v English and Logue (not a ruckman) v Bruce (not a ruckman).

I'm not really sure of the point you are trying to make here and don't see how it relates to MJP's post?

[GVGjr]

Why not? Because Freo knew our most important weakness, and they have seen others exploit it. They used two ruckmen against English, a bigger body and a jumper. They also knew we would have Bruce in the ruck and expected he would only get a couple of hitouts. You don’t waste Lobb in the ruck in those circumstances. You leave him in the forward line to get maximum benefits from the entries.



I agree that they didn't need to use Lobb in the ruck and he was far better value for them as a forward but I seem to recall that often when Darcy went off for Freo so did English for us leaving Logue vs Bruce for the majority of the time Bruce was giving Tim a rest.

Logue is a decent spare parts player for them.

[hujsh]

I didn't think the ruck had any real bearing on the outcome of this game. Correct me if I am wrong but in between cursing and shaking my head in frustration at how the game was going I thought most of the time I saw either Darcy v English and Logue (not a ruckman) v Bruce (not a ruckman).

I'm not really sure of the point you are trying to make here and don't see how it relates to MJP's post?

For most of the game I saw on the scoreboard we had all the hitouts to advantage too. I think Darcy caught up by the end but I have to agree it didn't seem like the ruck had any real impact on the game.

[Happy Days]

I thought English clipped Darcy, who is pretty good but had zero influence on the game. We actually did pretty well in the clearances themselves insofar as getting the first chance to make a play on the ball (was everything after that was so poorly executed) and I think Tim deserves some credit for that.

[Danjul]

I agree that they didn't need to use Lobb in the ruck and he was far better value for them as a forward but I seem to recall that often when Darcy went off for Freo so did English for us leaving Logue vs Bruce for the majority of the time Bruce was giving Tim a rest.

Logue is a decent spare parts player for them.

You are probably right in the proportions but I meant if English is neutralised we don’t get forward momentum for the midfielders. Our clearances were generally not as straight (goal to goal) which effectively takes our midfielders out of the scoring equation. Freo would have outscored us from that source, even though we got many lateral exits.

we tend to rely on the midfielders getting the ball into good position for the forwards when we win games. Our wins have often followed clean and direct exits from ruck contests. I thought Freo held an advantage there. Especially when their forwards were kicking accurately.

(Hope this makes sense)

[Grantysghost]

You are probably right in the proportions but I meant if English is neutralised we don’t get forward momentum for the midfielders. Our clearances were generally not as straight (goal to goal) which effectively takes our midfielders out of the scoring equation. Freo would have outscored us from that source, even though we got many lateral exits.

we tend to rely on the midfielders getting the ball into good position for the forwards when we win games. Our wins have often followed clean and direct exits from ruck contests. I thought Freo held an advantage there. Especially when their forwards were kicking accurately.

(Hope this makes sense)

I really want to go through each centre clearance when I get time and analyse effectiveness. Be an interesting exercise. Damn work getting in the way !

[bornadog]

I really want to go through each centre clearance when I get time and analyse effectiveness. Be an interesting exercise. Damn work getting in the way !

Are there stats for that?

[Grantysghost]

Are there stats for that?

I don't think so. Not that I can see with the pleb offerings they have.
There is an api you can query on one site that may have something like that.

[Axe Man]

Are there stats for that?

There are stats for effective clearances as they were quoted in the article about Port's ruck setup I posted last week. No idea how you access them though. Not sure if it's just me but the AFL site seems to have fewer useful stats than it used to.

[bornadog]

There are stats for effective clearances as they were quoted in the article about Port's ruck setup I posted last week. No idea how you access them though. Not sure if it's just me but the AFL site seems to have fewer useful stats than it used to.

Probably have to subscribe to Champion data

[The bulldog tragician]

I commented previously that it’s been said our centre clearance numbers are not as good against top sides. Would be interesting to access this stat.

[mjp]

I commented previously that it’s been said our centre clearance numbers are not as good against top sides. Would be interesting to access this stat.

Look. I get it. I do. But can I just say for a second that it makes total sense to me that our numbers vs TOP SIDES wouldn't be as good as our numbers against bottom sides...shouldn't that be the case for pretty much ALL of the stats?

[Mofra]

Well, perhaps the opposite is true... removing players is the answer?

If there is disunity within the group (which is likely given the 'spirit' in which we've played for most of the year) perhaps removing the source of that disunity will help get everyone on the same page?

Something isn't right.

[mjp]

Well, perhaps the opposite is true... removing players is the answer?

If there is disunity within the group (which is likely given the 'spirit' in which we've played for most of the year) perhaps removing the source of that disunity will help get everyone on the same page?

Something isn't right.

There's always something to this. As in any organisation though, the people who you want to see leave, NEVER DO (or have some kind of tenure/contracts that prevents their removal). In reality, the REASON why they are able to behave the way they do (against the core values of the group) is that at some point they have been essentially given the green light to do it (or what they perceived as the green light) OR they possess what they believe is a unique skill/capability that is somehow core to the operation...

[Topdog]

I'm at the point where I think Bevo is a large part of the problem. When it works we look great but it feels like its only worked intermittently for the last 4 years.

I feel like I know if we will win or lose within the 1st 5 minutes of a game and Im sick and tired of midfields walking through us.

[Mofra]

There's always something to this. As in any organisation though, the people who you want to see leave, NEVER DO (or have some kind of tenure/contracts that prevents their removal). In reality, the REASON why they are able to behave the way they do (against the core values of the group) is that at some point they have been essentially given the green light to do it (or what they perceived as the green light) OR they possess what they believe is a unique skill/capability that is somehow core to the operation...
In regular organisations it's hard to move people on, in clubland it is at least a little easier via the contract process for players by either telling them to explore their options or (a la Dahlhaus & JJ) low balling them so they look elsewhere themselves.

There is the 'creeping' behavioral change to consider too - small adjustments to behaviour over time that add up to a player suddenly being dropped/counselled and that player's reaction to the message.

[Mofra]

I'm at the point where I think Bevo is a large part of the problem. When it works we look great but it feels like its only worked intermittently for the last 4 years.

I feel like I know if we will win or lose within the 1st 5 minutes of a game and Im sick and tired of midfields walking through us.
It's more about the intangible 'magic' a coach can instill into a group.

Craig McRae has it with Collingwood. Complete buy in. Right now we simply don't. GWS had arguably the best list in the competition but lacked the complete 'buy in'.
We had it in 2015 and 2016, and for most of 2021. We have completely lost it right now.

Can Bevo get it back, and if so, how?

[Topdog]

It's more about the intangible 'magic' a coach can instill into a group.

Craig McRae has it with Collingwood. Complete buy in. Right now we simply don't. GWS had arguably the best list in the competition but lacked the complete 'buy in'.
We had it in 2015 and 2016, and for most of 2021. We have completely lost it right now.

Can Bevo get it back, and if so, how?

Agree with you overall but I dont think we had it for most of last year.

11 of our 15 wins were vs teams outside the 8 but of course we were neck deep in a GF up until the 15th minute of the 3rd qtr.

And that is part of why I think its time for a change.

[Mofra]

Agree with you overall but I dont think we had it for most of last year.

11 of our 15 wins were vs teams outside the 8 but of course we were neck deep in a GF up until the 15th minute of the 3rd qtr.

And that is part of why I think its time for a change.
I'm a massive fan of Bevo - he's coached 50% of our GF appearances and 33% of our finals wins since 1925 - but I am starting to worry he can't bring back that "something" we had in the group.

I really think he needs to embrace the 'professional' footy-head types (and that means retaining Dunkley) and consider moving on the guys who like the lifestyle as much as their footy (and there is one name in particular I have in mind).

If that means a late increased offer to Dunkley and taking unders at the trade table for "good" players we are shopping around - so be it.

[mjp]

(and there is one name in particular I have in mind)

Ummm...WHO?

[hujsh]

Would it be the bloke who signed on for 2 years recently?

[GVGjr]

Would it be the bloke who signed on for 2 years recently?

At a guess perhaps not.

[Mofra]

Ummm...WHO?
Hunter

[MrMahatma]

I'm a massive fan of Bevo - he's coached 50% of our GF appearances and 33% of our finals wins since 1925 - but I am starting to worry he can't bring back that "something" we had in the group.

I really think he needs to embrace the 'professional' footy-head types (and that means retaining Dunkley) and consider moving on the guys who like the lifestyle as much as their footy (and there is one name in particular I have in mind).

If that means a late increased offer to Dunkley and taking unders at the trade table for "good" players we are shopping around - so be it.

Nah. Even Chris Scott reckons you can't have a team full of straighty 180s. I agree. Embrace individuals and what they bring to the table. Set up the right space for them to succeed individually and collectively.

This season has been a real shame... but we WERE in a GF last year. I'm not sure what's gone wrong but I don't think we need to fully revisit our list or coach.

[boydogs]

I think adding players is the answer. Our momentum swings are based around the energy levels of our mids because under our game plan, they have to work incredibly hard or it falls over, because of what we are lacking - rucks, taggers, KPD's, lockdown defenders, intercept markers, small forwards

[jeemak]

Don't stress MJP, nobody wants to add players anymore.

There's literally no players we seem to be connected with or who might be available that anyone wants.

[Boots]

I've been watching this thread for a few days and I don't have anything to add except to say this is a really good way to come at the problem - when watching other teams get in 'big names', instant and obvious improvement is rarely the result and there is often a period of adjustment.

I'd like to think improvement would come from adjusting system before players.

[Bulldog Joe]

I've been watching this thread for a few days and I don't have anything to add except to say this is a really good way to come at the problem - when watching other teams get in 'big names', instant and obvious improvement is rarely the result and there is often a period of adjustment.

I'd like to think improvement would come from adjusting system before players.

I absolutely believe it to be system related and it may be as simple as having everybody onboard to make the system work.

What I do know is that to keep doing what we are doing hoping for a different result is not the answer. That is just insanity.

[Bullies]

Looks like they have approached Leon Cameron which is a good sign

[mjp]

I'd like to think improvement would come from adjusting system before players.

I have no doubt it is 'both'. But I have been trying to look at things from a little bit of a 'How would Geelong handle this' perspective (since they seem to finish top 4 every year and we can't do it ever).

1/. When they NEED a recruit, they go get 'best of breed'. They needed a forward - they went out and got Cameron. They needed an outside runner...they went out and got Isaac Smith. They needed a mid? Where's Dangerfield at. They don't seem to worry too much about the mid-range players - when they recruit them (Ceglar, Dalhaus, Stanley etc) it seems to be 'well, we're a good club - we'll have you but on our terms'.

2/. They seem to be drafting players with 'something' unique. I'm talking early picks here. Recent selections Holmes and Neale have both been selected well ahead of predictions...I guess to me it means they KNOW what they want and are going to get it.

I don't know. I'm probably wrong but I just feel we are the home of stray dogs and reclamation projects.
- Saints have King so don't need Bruce - we'll give him 4 years.
- Martin gets passed by Oscar Mc - don't worry, we'll take him.
- O'Brien plays 70 games in 10-years and is eternally frustrating for every Hawks fan - we'll give him 3 years rising 30.
- Jones hasn't played for 18 months and is 30 - we'll give him 3 years.
- We have Jamarra, Naughton and Bruce but you know what we need? ANOTHER tall forward - so we'll go get Lobb on reasonable coin for (I'm hearing) 4 seasons...
- We have Bont, Macrae, Dunks, Hunter, Liber, B. Smith...and Treloar is on the nose at Collingwood. We'll do it - worry about how it all fits together later...(I was reluctant to include this one as I acknowledge he is a genuine 'best of breed' type player but I still feel it represents my point).

I don't get it.

I've been told that you're never finished as a footballer until you've been recruited to play Full Forward for Footscray. I think we could amend that to be 'full forward, or ruck, or 3rd tall, or 3rd tall defender, or...'.

If we want to get someone, let's target players with a good proportion of their prime ahead of them. And let's target players who FIT what we want to do. But I guess to do that you would have to KNOW what you want to do and, well...

[DOG GOD]

Great post again MJP. I guess the question also remains, why isn’t the dogs a team that these A graders want to go to? Or are we just too reluctant to go after a Cameron or Dangerfield type.?

I agree, it seems like we go after the ones no one else either wants or are willing to give big contracts too.

We are known as the team of list cloggers and semi retired.

[hujsh]

I have no doubt it is 'both'. But I have been trying to look at things from a little bit of a 'How would Geelong handle this' perspective (since they seem to finish top 4 every year and we can't do it ever).

1/. When they NEED a recruit, they go get 'best of breed'. They needed a forward - they went out and got Cameron. They needed an outside runner...they went out and got Isaac Smith. They needed a mid? Where's Dangerfield at. They don't seem to worry too much about the mid-range players - when they recruit them (Ceglar, Dalhaus, Stanley etc) it seems to be 'well, we're a good club - we'll have you but on our terms'.

2/. They seem to be drafting players with 'something' unique. I'm talking early picks here. Recent selections Holmes and Neale have both been selected well ahead of predictions...I guess to me it means they KNOW what they want and are going to get it.

I don't know. I'm probably wrong but I just feel we are the home of stray dogs and reclamation projects.
- Saints have King so don't need Bruce - we'll give him 4 years.
- Martin gets passed by Oscar Mc - don't worry, we'll take him.
- O'Brien plays 70 games in 10-years and is eternally frustrating for every Hawks fan - we'll give him 3 years rising 30.
- Jones hasn't played for 18 months and is 30 - we'll give him 3 years.
- We have Jamarra, Naughton and Bruce but you know what we need? ANOTHER tall forward - so we'll go get Lobb on reasonable coin for (I'm hearing) 4 seasons...
- We have Bont, Macrae, Dunks, Hunter, Liber, B. Smith...and Treloar is on the nose at Collingwood. We'll do it - worry about how it all fits together later...(I was reluctant to include this one as I acknowledge he is a genuine 'best of breed' type player but I still feel it represents my point).

I don't get it.

I've been told that you're never finished as a footballer until you've been recruited to play Full Forward for Footscray. I think we could amend that to be 'full forward, or ruck, or 3rd tall, or 3rd tall defender, or...'.

If we want to get someone, let's target players with a good proportion of their prime ahead of them. And let's target players who FIT what we want to do. But I guess to do that you would have to KNOW what you want to do and, well...

Have Geelong not been somewhat guilty of doing something similar with the likes of Jenkins and Crameri in the past?

[bornadog]

- Saints have King so don't need Bruce - we'll give him 4 years.

I think you have been harsh on Bruce since we traded in him.

2020 wasn't a great year, but last year he was close to winning the Coleman if it wasn't for the ACL. I will take that any day.

[Axe Man]

- O'Brien plays 70 games in 10-years and is eternally frustrating for every Hawks fan - we'll give him 3 years rising 30.

I know it doesn't change your point but it's 2 YEARS! This is going to send me to an early grave.

He will be 29 when his contract runs out at the end of next season.

[GVGjr]

I have no doubt it is 'both'. But I have been trying to look at things from a little bit of a 'How would Geelong handle this' perspective (since they seem to finish top 4 every year and we can't do it ever).

1/. When they NEED a recruit, they go get 'best of breed'. They needed a forward - they went out and got Cameron. They needed an outside runner...they went out and got Isaac Smith. They needed a mid? Where's Dangerfield at. They don't seem to worry too much about the mid-range players - when they recruit them (Ceglar, Dalhaus, Stanley etc) it seems to be 'well, we're a good club - we'll have you but on our terms'.

2/. They seem to be drafting players with 'something' unique. I'm talking early picks here. Recent selections Holmes and Neale have both been selected well ahead of predictions...I guess to me it means they KNOW what they want and are going to get it.

I don't know. I'm probably wrong but I just feel we are the home of stray dogs and reclamation projects.
- Saints have King so don't need Bruce - we'll give him 4 years.
- Martin gets passed by Oscar Mc - don't worry, we'll take him.
- O'Brien plays 70 games in 10-years and is eternally frustrating for every Hawks fan - we'll give him 3 years rising 30.
- Jones hasn't played for 18 months and is 30 - we'll give him 3 years.
- We have Jamarra, Naughton and Bruce but you know what we need? ANOTHER tall forward - so we'll go get Lobb on reasonable coin for (I'm hearing) 4 seasons...
- We have Bont, Macrae, Dunks, Hunter, Liber, B. Smith...and Treloar is on the nose at Collingwood. We'll do it - worry about how it all fits together later...(I was reluctant to include this one as I acknowledge he is a genuine 'best of breed' type player but I still feel it represents my point).

I don't get it.



Outstanding post MJP, thanks for sharing. I guess there are just 2 examples in recent years where we have gone hell for leather to acquire what we might refer to as 'top end talent' from other teams and that is Boyd and Treloar and Treloar was very much a discounted acquisition. The rest is as you say filling in for some gaps.

Geelong have gone hard at players they want for a long period of time and it's been that way for a long time. 20 years ago was when they selected Andrew Mackie. Not sure how accurate this is by my understanding is that we really wanted Mackie but didn't feel like with pick 4 (Walsh) we could risk it and we were also somewhat confident he could be there for pick 17. Cats grabbed him at pick 7 and he ended up playing 280 games. Cats said they knew that and outstanding draft testing camp by Mackie in SA caught the eye of a couple of clubs but in the end they wanted more and were comfortable in using an early pick to get him. It shows a bit of conviction.

In more recent years you have highlighted includes De Koning and they certainly wanted Tim Kelly more than West Coast did.
Years earlier Blicavs ended up being an inspiring out of the box selection.

Definitely some food for thought.

[mjp]

I think you have been harsh on Bruce since we traded in him.

2020 wasn't a great year, but last year he was close to winning the Coleman if it wasn't for the ACL. I will take that any day.

Yep - Happy to accept I was (and have been) harsh on him and I think it is a fair criticism of my commentary. Just like everyone I guess I am one-eyed on occasion and I have found Bruce hard to love as a footballer.

I'll try to explain my perspective.

We gave a 4-year deal to a mature player who is NOT an 'A'-grader...how many good years have we got out of him? If the answer is 'half-a-season' then I am sorry but I don't think that is anywhere close to good enough. When we recruited him I just didn't get it - I saw the need for Keath but didn't understand the recruitment of Bruce.

2021? Yep. He was good. I still maintain his two biggest bags were vs Collingwood (5) and North (10) and they occupied spots 17 and 18 on the ladder...again, this is me being harsh (which I acknowledge) and I've obviously read all the jokes about goals not being counted when Josh Bruce kicks them according to some posters etc...I get it and I apologise for being overly critical. What I ultimately want though is my best players to lead the way when we need them MOST, not when we are going to be fine without them...

Back to my OP - recruiting Josh Bruce didn't move the needle in the same way that recruiting Lobb wont move the needle.

[mjp]

Have Geelong not been somewhat guilty of doing something similar with the likes of Jenkins and Crameri in the past?

Bit parters and backups.

If Geelong have been blind it has been in relation to the ruck position where they have really had trouble finding someone to 'stick'.

[bornadog]

Back to my OP - recruiting Josh Bruce didn't move the needle in the same way that recruiting Lobb wont move the needle.

I am not a fan of recruiting Lobb and Jones due to their age. If you look back at the history of my posts over 15 plus years, I have been criticised for pointing out a recruits age, and been told it shouldn't matter. But, I like to recruit in players that will give us a few years at their peak, not at the end of their career.


Bit parters and backups.


If Geelong have been blind it has been in relation to the ruck position where they have really had trouble finding someone to 'stick'.

Rucks, I feel are the hardest to get, and I get why we are chasing Lobb, but I am really unsure whether it is a good move.

Are we better off to just suck it up re 2nd ruck ie use Bruce while we develop Darcy and recruit in some rookie rucks (maybe a mature person from lower leagues and a young 18/19 year old) and develop them as well and see who is the best for the future?

Sweet can cover when Tim is injured.

[azabob]

Back to my OP - recruiting Josh Bruce didn't move the needle in the same way that recruiting Lobb wont move the needle.

Do you think we have a problem with our relief ruck during the game?

If we do, what is your solution to fix it?

[Mofra]

1/. When they NEED a recruit, they go get 'best of breed'. They needed a forward - they went out and got Cameron. They needed an outside runner...they went out and got Isaac Smith. They needed a mid? Where's Dangerfield at. They don't seem to worry too much about the mid-range players - when they recruit them (Ceglar, Dalhaus, Stanley etc) it seems to be 'well, we're a good club - we'll have you but on our terms'.
Well, we need a forward/second ruck and Lobb is 'best in breed' isn't he?
He's younger than Isaac Smith was in 2020 too when he crossed to Geelong.
I have little faith that Bruce will hold his spot next year.

Their "big" trade was Ottens who was maligned and got them three flags (our mini version of that was Boyd who was completely unproven at the time).

[Danjul]

I think you have been harsh on Bruce since we traded in him.

2020 wasn't a great year, but last year he was close to winning the Coleman if it wasn't for the ACL. I will take that any day.
The problem with Bruce is very simple. He is going to be played no matter what.

When he is out of form he gets games in the firsts to run into form.

That was done in 2020 and to describe it as not a great year is dishonest. It was disgraceful and his selection was shameful. Held back the team on the field and prevented player development. And he never gained form. Look at the elimination final where he got us eliminated.

In 2021 he was obviously in better shape and certainly should have been played. And after his 10 goal haul against north he seemed very confident in later games. Helped get and keep us at the top of the ladder. Excellent.

This year he has been totally out of form again, although some think goalless for three and a half games was an excellent return. He was a liability against Geelong and Freo. Poor performances which did more to help us lose than win. Couldn’t run properly, couldn’t turn, timing was out, generally made bad positions. All to be expected in the circumstances.

All others are judged on ‘where they are at’ . Bruce is judged on ‘where he has been’.

And they don’t even try to hide the fact! It is the blatant disrespect for genuine ‘selection’ principles that gets me.

And I don’t blame Bruce In any way. They pick him so he plays. He does his best and I hope next year’s return is a repeat of 2021.

[MrMahatma]

Getting in different players definitely can help. Lake was a great acquisition for Hawthorn for example. Lever and May weren’t drafted by Melb. Lynch wasn’t drafted by Richmond.

Is getting Lobb alone going to turn us into the best team? No. Is not addressing 2nd ruck again this off season going to make us better? Nope.

We need to fill gaps on the list with talent. I don’t think anyone is suggesting “let’s get some rubbish players who play in positions we need”. We all want A-Graders. And we have a role for Lobb. I’d play him ahead of Bruce for sure. And we have a need for 1, prob 2 good key defenders. And we have a need to stronger on-field leadership, and for a stronger team defence, and for better goal kicking…

Getting in good players is part of the puzzle.

[AshMac]

Very good post. Couldn’t agree more. Neither lobbe or Jones excite me at all.

They’re ungettable I know but Sam Taylor from GWS or Barrass from WCE should be our benchmark. One can dream though

[boydogs]

But I have been trying to look at things from a little bit of a 'How would Geelong handle this' perspective (since they seem to finish top 4 every year and we can't do it ever).


I've been told that you're never finished as a footballer until you've been recruited to play Full Forward for Footscray. I think we could amend that to be 'full forward, or ruck, or 3rd tall, or 3rd tall defender, or...'.

If we want to get someone, let's target players with a good proportion of their prime ahead of them. And let's target players who FIT what we want to do. But I guess to do that you would have to KNOW what you want to do and, well...

Geelong are the kings of topping up with 30 year olds to avoid bottoming out

[mjp]

Do you think we have a problem with our relief ruck during the game?

If we do, what is your solution to fix it?

Ummm.

Maybe??

I sort of don't really think we have a 'real' problem but you can have 1 of 2 philosophies with this role:

1/. You pick a second ruckman who can 'RUCK' and accept that in most circumstances that player will be a replacement level forward (at best). Example? Jackson at Melbourne, Ryder at the Saints etc.

2/. You use a position player who is tall enough/strong enough to 'fill in' for 5-minutes per q/hold the fort BUT this player gives you genuine positive minutes in their primary position. Example? Blicavs at Geelong.

The challenge we have right now is we are using a player who fits in neither of those two categories...and that is a problem. Will Lobb solve that problem? Well - I'm not sure because I don't see any way we can play English, Lobb, Bruce, Jamarra and Naughton in the same team.

Right now - if I was coaching - I would probably WANT to do what Bevo IS doing which is play Bruce and roll him up into the ruck for 5mins per q whilst crossing my fingers that something 'clicked' for him up forward. I don't think I could keep doing it though as Bruce looks a million miles off AFL footy right now (coming back from an ACL is v. hard and he is a big unit so it's probably even harder) and I would want to at least TRY Sweet in that role on the basis that:
- Maybe English could play a 50-50 ruck-forward split which would be more effective than having Bruce up there.
- Even if Sweet only spends 5 mins per q up forward and 14-17 in the ruck hopefully that WOULDN'T compromise rotations TOO much.

Rotations would stress me out with Sweet though - I would worry about the amount of time I would need to sit him on the pine because of his lack of forward line understanding and the impact that would have on my running players (in particular the West/Garcia/Weightman pressure forwards who play high intensity roles and would be at risk of getting cooked!).

So do I think we have a problem? I think we have a bit of a balance problem (as I have said repeatedly) and I think it hurts us.

2x Tall backs + 1x utility (Think Gardner + Keath + either Cordy or O'Brien).
1x genuine small defender (we only have one - Duryea).
3x running defenders (Richards, Dale and Daniel).
3x Outside mids (Williams, Hunter and Treloar)
4x Inside Mids (Liber, Bont, Macrae and Dunks)
1x Ruckman (English)
2x Tall forwards + 1x Utility support (Naughton, Jamarra + Bruce/Sweet)
1x Genuine small forward (we don't have one but say Weightman)
3x mid size forwards (Garcia, West and McNeil)

I've probably missed someone in my typing rush but I genuinely think we get the balance wrong and go in with players uncertain as to what their roles are...

[mjp]

Geelong are the kings of topping up with 30 year olds to avoid bottoming out

Disagree.

[Grantysghost]

Ummm.

Maybe??

I sort of don't really think we have a 'real' problem but you can have 1 of 2 philosophies with this role:

1/. You pick a second ruckman who can 'RUCK' and accept that in most circumstances that player will be a replacement level forward (at best). Example? Jackson at Melbourne, Ryder at the Saints etc.

2/. You use a position player who is tall enough/strong enough to 'fill in' for 5-minutes per q/hold the fort BUT this player gives you genuine positive minutes in their primary position. Example? Blicavs at Geelong.

The challenge we have right now is we are using a player who fits in neither of those two categories...and that is a problem. Will Lobb solve that problem? Well - I'm not sure because I don't see any way we can play English, Lobb, Bruce, Jamarra and Naughton in the same team.

Right now - if I was coaching - I would probably WANT to do what Bevo IS doing which is play Bruce and roll him up into the ruck for 5mins per q whilst crossing my fingers that something 'clicked' for him up forward. I don't think I could keep doing it though as Bruce looks a million miles off AFL footy right now (coming back from an ACL is v. hard and he is a big unit so it's probably even harder) and I would want to at least TRY Sweet in that role on the basis that:
- Maybe English could play a 50-50 ruck-forward split which would be more effective than having Bruce up there.
- Even if Sweet only spends 5 mins per q up forward and 14-17 in the ruck hopefully that WOULDN'T compromise rotations TOO much.

Rotations would stress me out with Sweet though - I would worry about the amount of time I would need to sit him on the pine because of his lack of forward line understanding and the impact that would have on my running players (in particular the West/Garcia/Weightman pressure forwards who play high intensity roles and would be at risk of getting cooked!).

So do I think we have a problem? I think we have a bit of a balance problem (as I have said repeatedly) and I think it hurts us.

2x Tall backs + 1x utility (Think Gardner + Keath + either Cordy or O'Brien).
1x genuine small defender (we only have one - Duryea).
3x running defenders (Richards, Dale and Daniel).
3x Outside mids (Williams, Hunter and Treloar)
4x Inside Mids (Liber, Bont, Macrae and Dunks)
1x Ruckman (English)
2x Tall forwards + 1x Utility support (Naughton, Jamarra + Bruce/Sweet)
1x Genuine small forward (we don't have one but say Weightman)
3x mid size forwards (Garcia, West and McNeil)

I've probably missed someone in my typing rush but I genuinely think we get the balance wrong and go in with players uncertain as to what their roles are...

If you were given the keys to the market and told to get what you think we need positionally what would be at the top of your shopping list?

For me it's a real intercept defender as it's super critical in Bevo's system.
Small crumbing forward.
Defensive mid.

[mjp]

If you were given the keys to the market and told to get what you think we need positionally what would be at the top of your shopping list?

For me it's a real intercept defender as it's super critical in Bevo's system.
Small crumbing forward.
Defensive mid.

The KEYS? The problem is to have the keys I would prob have to 'tweak' the system to fit what I think we need! And I don't think you can recruit on the basis that "well, if we get this guy then maybe Bevo will change the way we defend"...

I DO think we need genuine smalls at each end:
- Small defender with speed and tenacity who WANTS to play on an opponent. If that player happened to be 188cm with the ability to shut-down Fritsch AND Charlie Cameron all the better. So - I basically want young Dale Morris.
- Small forward who might occasionally try for mark of the year but is a genuine ground level player. Willie Rioli is out there...

What I really think we need to do is go to the draft and built our midfield/running player depth.

[FrediKanoute]

The problem with Bruce is very simple. He is going to be played no matter what.

When he is out of form he gets games in the firsts to run into form.

That was done in 2020 and to describe it as not a great year is dishonest. It was disgraceful and his selection was shameful. Held back the team on the field and prevented player development. And he never gained form. Look at the elimination final where he got us eliminated.

In 2021 he was obviously in better shape and certainly should have been played. And after his 10 goal haul against north he seemed very confident in later games. Helped get and keep us at the top of the ladder. Excellent.

This year he has been totally out of form again, although some think goalless for three and a half games was an excellent return. He was a liability against Geelong and Freo. Poor performances which did more to help us lose than win. Couldn’t run properly, couldn’t turn, timing was out, generally made bad positions. All to be expected in the circumstances.

All others are judged on ‘where they are at’ . Bruce is judged on ‘where he has been’.

And they don’t even try to hide the fact! It is the blatant disrespect for genuine ‘selection’ principles that gets me.

And I don’t blame Bruce In any way. They pick him so he plays. He does his best and I hope next year’s return is a repeat of 2021.

You are bang on and this is why Lobb was the perfect recruit last year because blind Freddy and the thre blind mice could see that coming off a reco there was no way Bruce would hit the fitness levels he needed to hit to play at the elvel we want him to play.

I think with a BIG pre-season he can go again in 2023, but if nothing else Lobb provides cover. So long as we don't overpay then I am ok with this.

[boydogs]

Disagree.

That doesn’t give me much to work with. They had Dangerfield fall in their laps as a local, other trades include Dahlhaus, Higgins, Crameri, Henderson, Isaac Smith, Zac Smith, Tuohy, Ablett, Steven, Jenkins and Ceglar

If you want to argue the merits of recruiting 30 year olds you might have a case but it sounds like you want the opposite and Geelong are your poster child

I thought Bruce and Keath were good business as mature but not Martin-mature, A-B graders in areas of need as we approached a window where our star mids were at their peaks. If Petracca wants to come to us for pick 15 that’s terrific, failing that we address our needs with players ready to perform now whilst the core of our list is

Do you also disagree that our inconsistency is due to not having a solid defense to withstand lapses in midfield intensity? To me the fix is adding players to improve our defence, including rucks to win the ball and small forwards to lock it in

[Bulldog4life]

Have Geelong not been somewhat guilty of doing something similar with the likes of Jenkins and Crameri in the past?

Every team has.

[Bulldog4life]

The problem with Bruce is very simple. He is going to be played no matter what.

When he is out of form he gets games in the firsts to run into form.

That was done in 2020 and to describe it as not a great year is dishonest. It was disgraceful and his selection was shameful. Held back the team on the field and prevented player development. And he never gained form. Look at the elimination final where he got us eliminated.

In 2021 he was obviously in better shape and certainly should have been played. And after his 10 goal haul against north he seemed very confident in later games. Helped get and keep us at the top of the ladder. Excellent.

This year he has been totally out of form again, although some think goalless for three and a half games was an excellent return. He was a liability against Geelong and Freo. Poor performances which did more to help us lose than win. Couldn’t run properly, couldn’t turn, timing was out, generally made bad positions. All to be expected in the circumstances.

All others are judged on ‘where they are at’ . Bruce is judged on ‘where he has been’.

And they don’t even try to hide the fact! It is the blatant disrespect for genuine ‘selection’ principles that gets me.

And I don’t blame Bruce In any way. They pick him so he plays. He does his best and I hope next year’s return is a repeat of 2021.

Who are the some? Sorry but this is a ridiculous comment.

[hujsh]

Who are the some? Sorry but this is a ridiculous comment.

Maybe it's the Trump? 'Some say I was the best president for the Blacks since Lincoln, maybe better'

[Danjul]

Who are the some? Sorry but this is a ridiculous comment.
People (some) on here said that when Bruce got three possessions he was an asset because he ‘straightened up’ the forward line, what ever that means. When he got 2 possessions the following week against Melbourne he was judged as the brains behind JUH’s 5 goals. An exaggeration, maybe, but consistent with the fact.

I definitely read it here. Here’s one of them:


Yeah, he may be struggling but he takes a good defender, makes our forward structure better and separates the defence. We are better as a team with him pot there even in his form atm.

It is ridiculous, certainly, but that applies to the original statements, not my referring to them.

[GVGjr]

People (some) on here said that when Bruce got three possessions he was an asset because he ‘straightened up’ the forward line, what ever that means. When he got 2 possessions the following week against Melbourne he was judged as the brains behind JUH’s 5 goals. An exaggeration, maybe, but consistent with the fact.

I definitely read it here.

It is ridiculous, certainly, but that applies to the original statements, not my referring to them.

I know Bevo has said Bruce returning has helped Marra but I'm not really seeing the value in that.
I don't think anyone really believes Bruce has been a genuine value for us since his return but there might be some intangibles he brings.

[Bulldog4life]

I know Bevo has said Bruce returning has helped Marra but I'm not really seeing the value in that.
I don't think anyone really believes Bruce has been a genuine value for us since his return but there might be some intangibles he brings.

That sums it up G. I don't remember anyone saying it was an excellent return by Bruce.

[Danjul]

I know Bevo has said Bruce returning has helped Marra but I'm not really seeing the value in that.
I don't think anyone really believes Bruce has been a genuine value for us since his return but there might be some intangibles he brings.

from a post after the Melbourne game:

Yeah, he may be struggling but he takes a good defender, makes our forward structure better and separates the defence. We are better as a team with him pot there even in his form atm.

it was written by an ‘anyone’

[bornadog]

from a post after the Melbourne game:

Yeah, he may be struggling but he takes a good defender, makes our forward structure better and separates the defence. We are better as a team with him pot there even in his form atm.

it was written by an ‘anyone’





I thought against Freo he was starting to really show some form.

[Danjul]

I thought against Freo he was starting to really show some form.
I agree, after half time.

It is proof that players should not be dropped after 1 or 2 or 3 bad games.

But we have seen some benched after a few bad minutes. I won’t elaborate on the ‘some’ but if you can’t think of any you haven’t been paying attention.

[MrMahatma]

The guy he's, presumably, competing with kicked 7 in the twos last week. So, I think with that kind of "pressure" coming from below he needs to move aside. I doubt he will.

[GVGjr]

I thought against Freo he was starting to really show some form.

Was it good enough to hold his spot in your opinion?

I'd say he's unlikely to be dropped but there might be a slight chance.

[bornadog]

Was it good enough to hold his spot in your opinion?

I'd say he's unlikely to be dropped but there might be a slight chance.

I thought he was brought back prematurely from VFL.

Do you now drop him? I doubt he will be.

[azabob]

Ummm.

Maybe??

I sort of don't really think we have a 'real' problem but you can have 1 of 2 philosophies with this role:

1/. You pick a second ruckman who can 'RUCK' and accept that in most circumstances that player will be a replacement level forward (at best). Example? Jackson at Melbourne, Ryder at the Saints etc.

2/. You use a position player who is tall enough/strong enough to 'fill in' for 5-minutes per q/hold the fort BUT this player gives you genuine positive minutes in their primary position. Example? Blicavs at Geelong.

The challenge we have right now is we are using a player who fits in neither of those two categories...and that is a problem. Will Lobb solve that problem? Well - I'm not sure because I don't see any way we can play English, Lobb, Bruce, Jamarra and Naughton in the same team.

Right now - if I was coaching - I would probably WANT to do what Bevo IS doing which is play Bruce and roll him up into the ruck for 5mins per q whilst crossing my fingers that something 'clicked' for him up forward. I don't think I could keep doing it though as Bruce looks a million miles off AFL footy right now (coming back from an ACL is v. hard and he is a big unit so it's probably even harder) and I would want to at least TRY Sweet in that role on the basis that:
- Maybe English could play a 50-50 ruck-forward split which would be more effective than having Bruce up there.
- Even if Sweet only spends 5 mins per q up forward and 14-17 in the ruck hopefully that WOULDN'T compromise rotations TOO much.

Rotations would stress me out with Sweet though - I would worry about the amount of time I would need to sit him on the pine because of his lack of forward line understanding and the impact that would have on my running players (in particular the West/Garcia/Weightman pressure forwards who play high intensity roles and would be at risk of getting cooked!).

So do I think we have a problem? I think we have a bit of a balance problem (as I have said repeatedly) and I think it hurts us.

2x Tall backs + 1x utility (Think Gardner + Keath + either Cordy or O'Brien).
1x genuine small defender (we only have one - Duryea).
3x running defenders (Richards, Dale and Daniel).
3x Outside mids (Williams, Hunter and Treloar)
4x Inside Mids (Liber, Bont, Macrae and Dunks)
1x Ruckman (English)
2x Tall forwards + 1x Utility support (Naughton, Jamarra + Bruce/Sweet)
1x Genuine small forward (we don't have one but say Weightman)
3x mid size forwards (Garcia, West and McNeil)

I've probably missed someone in my typing rush but I genuinely think we get the balance wrong and go in with players uncertain as to what their roles are...

mjp thank you for providing insight into what you would do and working through the scenarios at play and the thought process Beveridge would be going through.

It is also quite concerning our lack of A grade or even B grade key defenders, small defenders and small/mid forwards.

I do wonder if our balance problem and role clarity is of our own doing with Beveridge preferring flexibility over actual players who can only play one position and if you do not excel at it e.g. Sweet in the ruck you are not getting a look in.

[MrMahatma]

mjp thank you for providing insight into what you would do and working through the scenarios at play and the thought process Beveridge would be going through.

It is also quite concerning our lack of A grade or even B grade key defenders, small defenders and small/mid forwards.

I do wonder if our balance problem and role clarity is of our own doing with Beveridge preferring flexibility over actual players who can only play one position and if you do not excel at it e.g. Sweet in the ruck you are not getting a look in.

Isn’t list balance also an issue with a pure “best available” drafting strategy? Not sure what our strategy is as we’ve had to farm picks into JUH and Darcy the last 2 years.

[Grantysghost]

I thought he was brought back prematurely from VFL.

Do you now drop him? I doubt he will be.

Yep. Sit him down, have the chat get on the same page and get him a good pre season under his belt.

[GVGjr]

Isn’t list balance also an issue with a pure “best available” drafting strategy? Not sure what our strategy is as we’ve had to farm picks into JUH and Darcy the last 2 years.

The principle is sound but at times there is a reset option to this approach.
With two longer term prospects at the key positions in recent years selected our focus might switch slightly.
There will be plenty of good midfielders and defenders in this draft as well as KPP players

[Mofra]

You are bang on and this is why Lobb was the perfect recruit last year because blind Freddy and the thre blind mice could see that coming off a reco there was no way Bruce would hit the fitness levels he needed to hit to play at the elvel we want him to play.

I think with a BIG pre-season he can go again in 2023, but if nothing else Lobb provides cover. So long as we don't overpay then I am ok with this.
Casbault, the obvious 12 month stop gap who can pinch hit as a second ruck. A freebie gone begging.

[Mofra]

Isn’t list balance also an issue with a pure “best available” drafting strategy? Not sure what our strategy is as we’ve had to farm picks into JUH and Darcy the last 2 years.
Best available until you get to trading/PSD/rookie picks?

Small forwards and rucks slip to the rookie draft every year. Dean Cox was a rookie, Ginnivan a rookie. They are the two positions that (to the casual observer) seem over represented in the rookie picks who "make it". In the poo draft of 2010 we knocked it out of the park with two FS pick and nailing two rookies - JJ & Dahlhaus. Our only serious ruck depth (Sweet) was a rookie.

[GVGjr]

Best available until you get to trading/PSD/rookie picks?

Small forwards and rucks slip to the rookie draft every year. Dean Cox was a rookie, Ginnivan a rookie. They are the two positions that (to the casual observer) seem over represented in the rookie picks who "make it". In the poo draft of 2010 we knocked it out of the park with two FS pick and nailing two rookies - JJ & Dahlhaus. Our only serious ruck depth (Sweet) was a rookie.

With some slight variations it probably should be something like best available with the first two picks matching needs a bit later.
I guess nothing is that rigid.

[mjp]

That doesn’t give me much to work with. They had Dangerfield fall in their laps as a local, other trades include Dahlhaus, Higgins, Crameri, Henderson, Isaac Smith, Zac Smith, Tuohy, Ablett, Steven, Jenkins and Ceglar



Dangerfield. Cameron. Not 30. Genuine difference makers. These are the recruits I am talking about. (And mentioned).

Of those you listed, only Tuohey and Smith have been any more than bit part, moneyball style fill ins. They aren’t relying on Higgins or Dahlhaus...if they play at their best, we have something. Otherwise...who cares.

I kind of said all that in my post didn’t I?

Geelong are lucky because there is a lifestyle element to their footy club attractive to a lot of players - so they can offer unders to a player like Jack Steven and in *MIGHT* turn into something...if not, who cares.

We seem to recruit ageing players whom we are counting on...to me, that’s bad.

[bornadog]

We seem to recruit ageing players whom we are counting on...to me, that’s bad.

Realistically, how many ageing players in the Bevo era?

Other than Martin? Pretty sure most have been in the 26 to 28 year old mark.

My memory is fading me in my old age :D Maybe another poster can help.

Also, we aren't a destination club. Players going to Essendon, Collingwood, Richmond are told they can play at the G in front of big crowds, they can play in the ANZAC day game, or Dreamtime etc etc.

I was wrapped that Treloar was happy to come to us.

[mjp]

Realistically, how many ageing players in the Bevo era?

Other than Martin? Pretty sure most have been in the 26 to 28 year old mark.

My memory is fading me in my old age :D Maybe another poster can help.


Martin of course. Then you have selective memory when it comes to:
Trengove
Bruce
Duryea
O’Brien
Cloke
...

Keath as well but young in footy terms due to his cricket career.

Dare I say it. Treloar.

[Axe Man]

Martin of course. Then you have selective memory when it comes to:
Trengove
Bruce
Duryea
O’Brien
Cloke
...

Keath as well but young in footy terms due to his cricket career.

Dare I say it. Treloar.

To be fair BAD said 26-28 and all of those except Cloke would have been in that age range when recruited I think.

[Mofra]

To be fair BAD said 26-28 and all of those except Cloke would have been in that age range when recruited I think.
Cloke was a bust, Hall was ok but we got him a year too late.

Duryea has been an outstanding success, cheap and very good for his time with us.

[Sedat]

Martin of course. Then you have selective memory when it comes to:
Trengove
Bruce
Duryea
O’Brien
Cloke
...

Keath as well but young in footy terms due to his cricket career.

Dare I say it. Treloar.
Lloyd as well

[bornadog]

Martin of course. Then you have selective memory when it comes to:
Trengove
Bruce
Duryea
O’Brien
Cloke
...

Keath as well but young in footy terms due to his cricket career.

Dare I say it. Treloar.


Lloyd as well


Forgot about Cloke - thanks

The rest were all under 28, and not 30 plus as you suggested we recruit.

[josie]

Cloke was a bust, Hall was ok but we got him a year too late.

Duryea has been an outstanding success, cheap and very good for his time with us.

If thug Zeibell had not crunched Cloke I truly think Cloke would have been successful with us. Agree Duryea has been v good.

[GVGjr]

Martin of course. Then you have selective memory when it comes to:
Trengove
Bruce
Duryea
O’Brien
Cloke
...

Keath as well but young in footy terms due to his cricket career.

Dare I say it. Treloar.

I think we are missing a couple of lower key additions, wasn't Jed Adcock north of 30 when we rookied him?

I guess we didn't trade for Adcock or Brett Goodes

[Scorlibo]

IMO the Bevo era has brought about some really good recruiting (both via trading and drafting). There have been busts for sure (Cloke, Adcock, Trengove), there always are, and taking your point mjp that it's much worse when reliant on the incoming player to perform. We were guilty of this with Cloke and Trengove. Martin and Bruce were slightly different cases where we'd had continued development from Naughton and English to sure us up in those positions, so we weren't quite so reliant on the incoming player's performance. O'Brien added depth and I don't believe we ever intended to rely on him.

The Treloar trade is the best trade I've seen the club pull off, so a bit surprised to see your criticism. I would have thought that the overall performance of the midfield group the past couple of years, while they've all been sharing the load, has proven that Treloar's addition wasn't surplus to requirements and actually did take us to another level in that area of the ground. There are occasions I think where the approach of taking the 'best available talent' can be borrowed from drafting and appropriated to trading, and this was one such occasion.

Duryea, Keath, Crozier, Lloyd and Bruce have each played at least one high-level season for the club and been good citizens, and most importantly we didn't overpay for any of them. We've been good enough to retain our high draft picks and select great talent while still getting a steady stream of experienced players into the club.

If there's one aspect of our strategy that has been disappointing IMO it's letting go of the 'not-quite' players that have since been valued members of others teams. Notably key defenders Jones, Adams, Young and Roughead. In reality the culprit might be our development of lesser-lights, or else a void of leadership in the post-Morris/Boyd/Murphy/Gia era. Roughead is the one that really stings because we'd already witnessed his ability to hold down a key defensive role and he was exactly the kind of person that you could build club culture around. Double whammy.

But for all of the interesting analysis on individual players, I'm most drawn to your excellent OP mjp - something is not quite right with the group at the moment and it's not fixable with player movements. Totally agree. On the weekend I saw a lot of frowns and a lot of pointing, a lot of negativity and seriousness in the air. When Bruce kicked his goal (at quite an important time in the context of the game) I thought that the guys would really rally around him, and they kind of did, but it almost felt like a procession of sympathy hugs. It was a weird vibe I thought. Then of course there's our defensive system being picked apart consistently, the blame for this should be shouldered by the coaching and leadership groups rather than individuals.

[boydogs]

Dangerfield. Cameron. Not 30. Genuine difference makers. These are the recruits I am talking about. (And mentioned).

Of those you listed, only Tuohey and Smith have been any more than bit part, moneyball style fill ins. They aren’t relying on Higgins or Dahlhaus...if they play at their best, we have something. Otherwise...who cares.

I kind of said all that in my post didn’t I?

Geelong are lucky because there is a lifestyle element to their footy club attractive to a lot of players - so they can offer unders to a player like Jack Steven and in *MIGHT* turn into something...if not, who cares.

We seem to recruit ageing players whom we are counting on...to me, that’s bad.

Geelong would get 40 touches each out of Ablett, Selwood and Dangerfield some weeks as they ran up and down the field passing it to each other. Ablett was 100% central to their plan to top up and win a GF and it nearly worked. If he wasn’t injured mid game they may have held on

Anyway I think your point was that adding players doesn’t fix a system, or an unmotivated core. I reckon the system and the motivation would be a whole lot better if the mids got reward for effort and some support around the rest of the ground. They were excited when Stefan Martin came and they didn’t have to try and rove opposition taps all day

[Sedat]

Geelong would get 40 touches each out of Ablett, Selwood and Dangerfield some weeks as they ran up and down the field passing it to each other. Ablett was 100% central to their plan to top up and win a GF and it nearly worked.
Unpopular opinion, but getting Martin nearly worked as well. He had Gawn well under control at stoppages for 2 and a half quarters - unfortunately Jackson (and the Melbourne mids) ran riot for 8 minutes.

[boydogs]

Unpopular opinion, but getting Martin nearly worked as well. He had Gawn well under control at stoppages for 2 and a half quarters - unfortunately Jackson (and the Melbourne mids) ran riot for 8 minutes.

True enough, playing at Melbourne with him probably helped though, can't give the recruiters credit for knowing we would play Melbourne in the GF and that connection would be critical

[Axe Man]

True enough, playing at Melbourne with him probably helped though, can't give the recruiters credit for knowing we would play Melbourne in the GF and that connection would be critical

I'm not sure Stef would have much advantage having been on the same list as Gawn 10 years ago, back when Max was mostly out with knee injuries.