List-building has Dogs ready: Eade

[Mantis]

By Jennifer Witham
8:57 AM Thu 18 March, 2010

Western Bulldogs coach Rodney Eade says alleviating the club of "list cloggers" over the past five years has left him with a solid line up to take into the 2010 season.

Eade says the future is bright for the Dogs after putting half a decade of work into assembling the 46-man list that just claimed its first silverware in 40 years with its NAB Cup win over St Kilda on Saturday night.

"We haven't had anyone that's a list clogger," he said at the club's jumper presentation on Wednesday night at Crown.

"Experience has told me from the previous club I was at that you tend to at times goes for depth players that have played five or six games that are 22, 23, 24 and are not going to improve.

"What we've done is we've decided to give kids a go if we get injuries, and I think that has left the list in good stead".

The rest of the article can be viewed by clicking this link (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/90700/default.aspx).

[ratsmac]

I take it that this is the reason that Wade Skipper couldn't get a game with us. Eade must have seen him as a "list clogger". Or maybe he just wasn't good enough.

[LostDoggy]

Potential List Cloggers

Skipper? Power? McMahon? Birss? Ray?

[BulldogBelle]

Potential List Cloggers

Skipper? Power? McMahon? Birss? Ray?

Not Ray or McMahon unfortunately.

[LostDoggy]

Skipper kept missing out due to better ruckman (ie: Huddo & big Will).
Ray ------ Good Riddance
McMahon-----Ditto
Can't comment on Birss or Power, never saw enough of them, however I'd go with Rocket's decision any day

[Swoop]

Is Tim Callan a list clogger?

[macca]

Birss was a good player, probably just lacked the body strength to take other players on. He was a beautiful kick, but unfortunately he was contesting against a team with a lot of good outside players at the time( gia, eagleton, higgins, cooney )

I just wonder though if he could've been a replacement for Eagleton. McMahon, classic downhill skier. His days are numbered under Hardwick.

Wight ? Possibly, but I thought he showed a lot promise in his first few games in 2007( I remember eade saying 'we found a player' ), and first few games of 2008, and then just lost confidence( maybe we lost a player).

Lynch, maybe stack?

But Eade has been good in managing the list. His good call, 23-25 year olds only playing a handful of games.

[Mantis]

Is Tim Callan a list clogger?

Not at present, but he could well be at the end of the year if he doesn't play atleast 10 games this season.

[mjp]

Aren't list cloggers players who the club/coaches have failed?

[Mantis]

Aren't list cloggers players who the club/coaches have failed?

Perhaps they are just players who don't reach their full potential (for whatever reason), but the coach sees something in them such that they are kept for an extra year or two just in case.

[LostDoggy]

Aren't list cloggers players who the club/coaches have failed?

Only if you're Richmond. Or us during the Rohde years...

[BulldogBelle]

I think Rhode WAS the list clogger...

[mjp]

Only if you're Richmond. Or us during the Rohde years...

Good news that we have put together the perfect coaching staff, perfectly meeting the development needs of every player.

When does a bloke who is not getting a game, not ready for a game and not going to get a game become a list clogger? Does this mean Boumann, Cordy, Grant, Mulligan, Stack, Addison, Wood etc are all list cloggers in waiting? When do you go from talented kid to 'clogger'? After your 3rd year? 5th year? And who gets the blame? And what is the blame based on?

Take a kid like O'Keefe - regularly in the bests for Willi, you would have to say that from a pure 'game impact' perspective he was given a raw deal by the coaches. Yet they would say he was slow and had a poor work ethic...he would probably counter with 'well, they were never going to give me a chance anyway'.....and on it goes. No-one wins.

I just hate the terminology...not everything can be put into little boxes like this.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Aren't list cloggers players who the club/coaches have failed?

Not necessarily.

List cloggers can also be guys who didn't work hard enough, weren't disciplined enough or simply weren't talented enough.


O'Keefe was a speculative draft pick with known deficiencies. It was hoped he could address his weaknesses because he did have some good points as well, it's not as if there's any standouts left at pick 60.

The fact is he couldn't overcome his lack of pace or endurance so he got cut.

Individuals have to accept that sometimes it's their fault too. Had O'Keefe worked as hard as Cross maybe it might have worked out differently for him.


You become a list clogger when you are not a senior regular and have stopped improving.

[mighty_west]

Take a kid like O'Keefe - regularly in the bests for Willi, you would have to say that from a pure 'game impact' perspective he was given a raw deal by the coaches. Yet they would say he was slow and had a poor work ethic...he would probably counter with 'well, they were never going to give me a chance anyway'.....and on it goes. No-one wins.
.

If he had that attitude, he would never have made the grade anyway!

15 other clubs also overlooked O'Keefe, including Geelong where he was given an invitation to train with before the draft.

Is it the senior coaches role to develop these players as such, given all of the coaching staff clubs have these days? or is the head coaches number one priority to win games of footy?

Plus, sometimes these players actually have to take some of the blame themselves, if they just are not good enough but have given it there all, thats just bad luck, however, if these players don;t apply themselves in all area's to give themselves the best opportunities, well, i certaintly wouldn't be blaming any coaches!

[mjp]

I dont think it is as simple as all that. I know Moles was 'only' a rookie at Geelong, but all of a sudden he looks set to play round 1 for a team that finished top 4 each of the last two years. Clearly he needed to be moved on at the cattery...but is the improvement down purely to him or to the coaches?

If you say the coaches have something to do with success, then they also have something to do with failure. I for one am beginning to understand that players who I coach for more than 12-months who aren't improving is usually on my head, not theirs.

[mighty_west]

I dont think it is as simple as all that. I know Moles was 'only' a rookie at Geelong, but all of a sudden he looks set to play round 1 for a team that finished top 4 each of the last two years. Clearly he needed to be moved on at the cattery...but is the improvement down purely to him or to the coaches?

If you say the coaches have something to do with success, then they also have something to do with failure. I for one am beginning to understand that players who I coach for more than 12-months who aren't improving is usually on my head, not theirs.

Isn't the coach always the scapegoat? there always has to be someone to blame, someone to take the fall no matter the case though?

How much also falls on the recruitment team, if a player just simply isn't good enough?

Tim Callan is probably a really good example, he works his ass off, yet at Geelong, he just couldn't crack into their side, because they were just too good, they had too much depth as well, yet, Tim is easily too good for VFL footy, he seems to be one of those stuck in between.

As the Dogs start to become a very strong side, he again drops back a few notches, not for a lack of work, not for not been given every opportunity, just that he isn't quite good enough to be a regular 22 player, yet he'd most likely get a game on a consistamt basis at alot of other clubs.

There have seem to be alot of list clogger types over time, and do get games here and there, but just don't make the most of their opportunities, Skipper was given games in his 8 years, Wight also, Cam Faulkner, Keiren McGuiness etc etc.

All decent VFL players, yet just wearn't good enough to take that next step, and i don't think a coach should take any blame what so ever, just like yourself mjp, if you're doing a good job in making up a good side, and developing good players, the ones that fall away, i can't see why you should take the blame for those, if they have a bad attitude, or they simply are not good enough......

[GVGjr]

I just hate the terminology...not everything can be put into little boxes like this.

Same here. To me the term means that the club and or coach have poorly managed the playing list by having marginal players signing longer term contracts than their ability should suggest. It's not fair to label the player without the coach or list managers sharing some of the responsibility.

Blaming or lumping the player into group like that is just too convenient.

[mjp]

if they have a bad attitude, or they simply are not good enough......


But those two things are very different.

Bad attitude = WAY GONE. Unless of course there are external factors causing the problem that the club/coaches aren't on top of.

Not being good enough doesn't make you a list clogger though does it? That is the part I dont get - there are probably 12-15 guys on our list at the moment who aren't going to be good enough to have a footy career...they aren't list cloggers, they are just blokes doing their absolute best.

Like I said, I hate the terminology and what turns you from talented kid to list clogger? When does that happen?

[mighty_west]

But those two things are very different.

Bad attitude = WAY GONE. Unless of course there are external factors causing the problem that the club/coaches aren't on top of.

Not being good enough doesn't make you a list clogger though does it? That is the part I dont get - there are probably 12-15 guys on our list at the moment who aren't going to be good enough to have a footy career...they aren't list cloggers, they are just blokes doing their absolute best.

Like I said, I hate the terminology and what turns you from talented kid to list clogger? When does that happen?

Well, that bags the question, what exactly is a list clogger? Is it that player that is simply not developing for whatever reason, or a depth player that can play a role if required, but is not essential to a teams list?

When does it happen? i guess that has to be judged dependng on each individual player.

[FrediKanoute]

By Jennifer Witham
8:57 AM Thu 18 March, 2010

Western Bulldogs coach Rodney Eade says alleviating the club of "list cloggers" over the past five years has left him with a solid line up to take into the 2010 season.


Ouch........

[Sockeye Salmon]

But those two things are very different.

Bad attitude = WAY GONE. Unless of course there are external factors causing the problem that the club/coaches aren't on top of.

Not being good enough doesn't make you a list clogger though does it? That is the part I dont get - there are probably 12-15 guys on our list at the moment who aren't going to be good enough to have a footy career...they aren't list cloggers, they are just blokes doing their absolute best.

Like I said, I hate the terminology and what turns you from talented kid to list clogger? When does that happen?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, so call it a duck.

Tim Callan is a list clogger - no offense intended Tim, you just are.


There probably are a dozen players on our list who won't make it, the problem we have is at this stage is we don't know which 12. Over time we'll work out who they are and they will be moved on. The challange is identifying which guys have the capability to keep improving and which guys don't.

At 20 Cam Wight is a mobile tall with potential, at 24 he is a list clogger. He'd stopped improving short of the required level.

[FrediKanoute]

Is Tim Callan a list clogger?

Reading the rest of the article, it doesn't bode well for Tim Callan or Steve Tiller if game time is going to be put into guys like Roughhead, Grant, Jones, Wood etc

[mjp]

Tim Callan is a list clogger - no offense intended Tim, you just are.



Right now he is a valuable back up. He played finals last year...surely you dont become a so-called list clogger over christmas.

[chef]

Right now he is a valuable back up. He played finals last year...surely you dont become a so-called list clogger over christmas.

And if it wasn't for Harbrow's emergence, he would have played a lot more.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Right now he is a valuable back up. He played finals last year...surely you dont become a so-called list clogger over christmas.

Eade said we don't carry back up players.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Patrick Bowden was a classic list clogger

[mighty_west]

Eade said we don't carry back up players.

Well why did we recruit a few then? Markovic, Rose, Moles.

[GVGjr]

Well why did we recruit a few then? Markovic, Rose, Moles.

I mentioned it before but we were in a way trying to add some depth on the cheap.
The list clogging expression is just a convenient way of moving the blame from the list managers to the players and a lot of supporters can't look any deeper than that.
Manage the list better and there is simply no such thing.

[mighty_west]

I mentioned it before but we were in a way trying to add some depth on the cheap.
The list clogging expression is just a convenient way of moving the blame from the list managers to the players and a lot of supporters can't look any deeper than that.
Manage the list better and there is simply no such thing.

But if that was the case, and managing a team better, therefor having more depth in your club, there will only still be 22 positions avaliable in any case, therefor some of those players that can't fit into the best 22, may very well be very good players who would slot into any other side, such as Callan, he would walk straight into the Melbourne or Richmind teams, yet isn't quite good enough to crack it into the stronger teams as that best 22 player.

Another example is Sam Power, rated highly as a junior, taken pick 10 in the draft, was given alot of opportunities from Rocket & Dean Laidley at the Roo's where he was played more as a tagger, he also has an outstanding attutude.

Who should take the wrap for Sam, now that he is no longer in the system?

If he just isn't good enough, there is not much anyone can do, and in his case, it wasn't from a lack of opportunities or hard work on & off the track.

[GVGjr]

But if that was the case, and managing a team better, therefor having more depth in your club, there will only still be 22 positions avaliable in any case, therefor some of those players that can't fit into the best 22, may very well be very good players who would slot into any other side, such as Callan, he would walk straight into the Melbourne or Richmind teams, yet isn't quite good enough to crack it into the stronger teams as that best 22 player.

Another example is Sam Power, rated highly as a junior, taken pick 10 in the draft, was given alot of opportunities from Rocket & Dean Laidley at the Roo's where he was played more as a tagger, he also has an outstanding attutude.

Who should take the wrap for Sam, now that he is no longer in the system?

If he just isn't good enough, there is not much anyone can do, and in his case, it wasn't from a lack of opportunities or hard work on & off the track.

I suppose the point I'm making is that I hear Wayde Skipper being called a list clogger last season when in fact we hadn't drafted ruckman to the primary list for a while and he wasn't blocking anyone.
He did however, add a lot of depth to to the ruck division but from a number of fans perspective he had been on the list too long and shouldn't have been there. Was it the club or players fault that he was still on our list?

Regarding Sam Power, sometimes you win or lose with an early pick and Power just was a step behind where he needed to be to carve out a longer career. Perhaps we could have used him better but we will never know.

[soupman]

I interpret a list clogger to be a player who doesn't have the current or potential ability to be a best 22 player anymore.

Every player that is recruited to a club will be deemed as having the ability to be in that sides best 22 at some point, whether that is immediate (eg. Barry Hall), in a year (eg. First round draft pick), or in 4 years (eg. Ayce Cordy).

At some point though, it will become obvious that the prospect of a player becoming a best 22 player in the immediate or near future is slim to none. This isn't to say that the player isn't good enough to be serviceable at AFL level, and isn't to say that they are a bad player, it simply means that they are taking a spot on your list that could be invested in someone who still has that prospect ahead of them.

Now a player like Cameron Wight is a interesting example of this. When he was recruited to the club he was deemed as a very raw prospect who would take a while to develop physically and as a player. I'm unsure what position they saw him filling, but it would have been a spot in our 22.

Then, in 2006 he broke through and played a few games, culminating in two finals. I remember him looking like a good prospect at that stage. Physically he was tall, quick and strong enough to play on those tall leading forwards. Game wise, he didn't really get the footy a lot, didn't have any outstanding attributes such as foot skills or marking, and frequently turned the ball over through a combination of skills and decision making.

However, at that point he was given leeway as he had half the attributes, and we often see players improve in these areas as they adjust to the different level of footy.

2007 was the same sort of thing, but over the course of the 2007 and 2008 seasons it soon became apparant that those deficiencies were not diminishing. He was still prone to bad decision making, and still didn't have anything that set him apart from other players except for the fact he was tall. It was halfway through 2008 though that it became clear that we felt he had become a list clogger. He simply hadn't progressed as hoped since that 2006 finals series, and without improvement coming as a side effect of playing in the seniors he wasn't good enough to justify stopping someone else from playing.

He thus became a list clogger, as he was no longer deemed to be good enough to be in our best 22, and not able to improve enough to realistically put him in a best 22 for later years.

As for Tim Callan, I feel he is most likely to be a list clogger. He has shown on ocassion (the Geelong prelim in '08) that he can be a very good player. However, his strength (his bravery) isn't always of great benefit, and the other thing he is good at (stopping good players) often gets undone by one of his two major deficiencies (goes to ground to often and easily, leaving his opponent almost uncontested to dispose of the footy as he gets back up). The other deficiency is his disposal by foot/decision making, which is often shaky.

You could compare him to Dylan Addison and say they are pretty similiar, except: Addison is more rounded athletically, and with the extra height he is able to cover more positions. Addison is also more suited to the midfield, where his strengths such as fighting for the ball and providing defensive pressure are more useful. I also think Addisons weaknesses aren't as pronounced. His kicking isn't bad, its his decisions which re the problem. He also doesn't tend to influence matches enough, but that could be because he is still developing at AFL level. I think at the moment Addison could still develop into a best 22 player, but another year or so on the fringes might indicate he isn't progressing as hoped.

As for Callan getting games at other clubs, he probably would, but only those clubs where he is a better option than another player. I still feel he will ultimately be a list clogger with them too though, as I feel that the clubs he is good enough to get a game at are those sitting about 7th to 16th. This means they are planning to improve to become a top 4 side, and Callan playing is merely holding back the development of their own Cameron Wights (circa 2006), who could still become that player we hoped he'd be.

[mjp]

Eade said we don't carry back up players.

I'm kind of with MW here SS. If we don't carry backups, why was our entire recruiting strategy (after round 2) build on this basis? And why was Mulligan upgraded?

Regardless, I don't really care and have been advocating a strategy (forever) that would see guys we aren't going to play be delisted at all costs and biting deeper in the draft/rookie draft to find replacements. Reasons for delisting would be:
- They aren't good enough, and/or;
- The coach doesn't have any faith in. O'Keefe is in this category I think?

So, I guess I don't mind the tenor of the article, but I just hate the terminology - it just doesn't sit with my 'pro-player' bias.

[Before I Die]

Well why did we recruit a few then? Markovic, Rose, Moles.

I don't think you can call rookies "back ups". They are not even available to play unless there is a long term injury. They are calculated gambles with a relatively low cost and a two year limit on their tenure unless promoted or re rookied.

Markovic is different. I suspect the coaches believe injury hasn't allowed him to reach his true potential so far and he may well become best 22. Also I am not sure that the "play the kids" philosophy goes as far as putting a tall, skinny kid on a Jonathon Brown or Nick Riewoldt. To date this job has fallen to Morris when Williams has been unavailable and next in line would be Shaggy or Tiller if fit. I must admit, however, that I have been surprised Markovic didn't get a run in the NAB cup games.

[mjp]

I don't think you can call rookies "list cloggers". They are calculated gambles with a relatively low cost and a two year limit on their tenure unless promoted or re rookied.


He said they were backups - in response to a comment that we dont recruit backups.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Well why did we recruit a few then? Markovic, Rose, Moles.

They're not list cloggers until they prove they're not up to it.

Markovic, Rose and Moles are simply draftees with potential like any other, there just a bit older than most. Dale Morris and Brian Lake were older when they were drafted as well but they're hardly list cloggers.

[Before I Die]

He said they were backups - in response to a comment that we dont recruit backups.

My apologies, I have corrected the terminology in my post. I also share your dislike for the term "list clogger". I find it derogatory, given that it most often is attached to hard working players who fall just short of the "eker" classification. I also don't like it because it is a Garry Lyonism, nuff said.

[ledge]

My thoughts on what Eade is trying to do is bring in players who will cover older players as they retire for example Cordy when Hudson retires?
Getting the age roundabout right so the younger one is ready to go this means both young and old players will be on the list at the same time hopefully passing on experience.

Harbrow has probably shone in a position Callan and Addison were expected to fill, taken his opportunity you might say, most would have thought Harbrow an opportunist forward early on.

The game as changed as far as HBF or BP is concerned they used to be taggers of a sort but now one is used as a tagger and the other a run off player.
Morris is the tagger and Harbrow runs off, Hargraeve tags , Gilbee runs off.

I would not call Callan or Addison list cloggers as they both are up to league standard its just we have better players in their position at this moment.

Skipper wasnt a list clogger but a player who was starved of opportunities due to the players we had in his position being better.

List cloggers dont exist as far as I m concerned.
Back up players do.

[mighty_west]

They're not list cloggers until they prove they're not up to it.

Markovic, Rose and Moles are simply draftees with potential like any other, there just a bit older than most. Dale Morris and Brian Lake were older when they were drafted as well but they're hardly list cloggers.

Yep, never mentioned that were list cloggers, but depth players recruited in, i do agree with you though that a "list clogger" is a player that can no longer improve without getting a regular senior game, so whats the point of keeping him on the list, especially knowing each team has to lose at least 3 players each season.

Markovic as a key defender, with the likes of Boumann & Mulligan already in the sheds developing away, and like many, couldn't understand why he didn't get a crack at it in the NAB.

Moles has shown so far that he could very well hold back some of the other developing mids, and thats great for the team, and for himself, but does that hold back one or two of those already developing?

Don't get me wrong, i remember Rocket saying we wearn't drafting in depth players, going back a few years when he said that, i just wonder if his thougts have changed depending on where the team is at.

We were still clearly in a development mode back then, now we are a genuine Premiership chance where we'll most likely not see alot of the younger players get a game, plus the news rules with recruting mature aged rookies, and needing a few depth players as back up, where's in development mode, they would only hold up the kids.

[LostDoggy]

Don't forget that the lack of quality in the younger draft candidates maybe persuaded Eade and co to go for a few more older players rather than take a few risks.