Star power

[Sedat]

I've been reading with interest the 'top 10 players in the AFL' thread in AFL talk as well as the discussion on Mike Sheahan's top 50 players in the competition, and one thing that is almost uniformly acknowledged is that we don't have any players in the top half-dozen in the competition: to use a Top Gun analogy, there are no Bulldog players who are currently 'the best of the best'. I personally believe that our bench players have the most talent in the competition, so we certainly have a more evenly spread talent base than the other contenders this season. And there is no doubt that we have some players who have the potential to move into that elite category in the coming years. But as it currently stands today, we don't have a player at that Riewoldt or Ablett level running around in a Bulldogs jumper.

Which leads me to the question...What is more preferable to have when the stakes are at their highest in September? An even spread of talent (whereby the bench players can make a significant impact as fatigue starts to set in the 2nd half of finals), or absolute top-shelf talent that can help get you over the line in a close final (with a sprinkling of robotic spuds that are programmed to just do the basics within the game plan)? Last year's prelimiary final loss would point to the latter (ie: Hayes and Riewoldt almost single-handedly getting St Kilda over the line) but then there are other examples of the former being a more valuable asset come September (ie: the West Coast and Adelaide premiership teams in the 90's that had very valuable contributions from their lower profile players, while superstar laden teams like Geelong and St Kilda could not get over the line). Would be great to get other people's thoughts.

[LostDoggy]

Look at Hawthorn for your answer.

2008 - All fit and firing - win flag.
2009 - No depth to cover injuries, star players lacking form - couldn't make the finals.

I would take the talented squad over a few gun players any day.

[Sedat]

Hawthorn proved that a fit and healthy list has a better chance of winning the flag than one that has limped into September. Not sure they prove either argument one way or the other.

[bornadog]

Hawthorn proved that a fit and healthy list has a better chance of winning the flag than one that has limped into September. Not sure they prove either argument one way or the other.

Wouldn't Cooney fit into that superstar role? Last year he was injured but played sensationally in the second half. I expect him to have a huge season this year.

I would prefer an even spread across the team, and not rely on one or two to get us over the line.

[Sockeye Salmon]

St. Kilda have a Nick Riewoldt ACL between them and missing the 8.

[Mantis]

Personally I would prefer the even spread of talent model as you are less suspectible to injuries. Although we have some very important players to our structure I wouldn't think that the arse would completely fall out if we lost a key player unlike St.Kilda with SS's example.

However as we have seen over the years in close finals matches it's your guns that get you over the line. Through the Brisbane years Voss & Aker were the players that Brisbane would look to at crucial stages, same last year when Chapman & Ablett lifted Geelong when they needed it. As Sedat mentioned Hayes & Riewoldt did the same against us in the PF.

As yet we haven't found a way to win these tense matches in Septemeber, but we were only a slice of luck away from proclaiming Griffen as the 'star' who got us over the line against St.Kilda. On potential we have just as many 'big guns' as the rest and all it needs is one of them to stamp themselves as this when it really matters. Let's hope when September comes around we have players such as Cooney, Griffen, Lake, Higgins, (or someone else) all up and going and one of these (or all of them) become the player/s that can lift us when we really need it.

[Murphy'sLore]

Isn't there some theory that says a winning side doesn't depend on how good the best five players are, it's how well their worst five players perform that counts?

By that standard we must match up pretty well with anyone.

[soupman]

I don't think we lack star power, it's more that we don't have a player that drags us across the line week after week.

If you look at sides like St.Kilda with Riewoldt, they often rely on him playing well to win. If he doesn't play well they struggle to find another player to drag them over the line. He does it on such a consistent basis though that he stands out and they can play like that.

With our side however we have multiple players who can drag us over the line, but very few who do it every week. Cooney is probably the most frequent player in the star category, but we've seen matches where the decisive factor has been a Griffen, Johnson and now a Hall.

I like our model because there's less riding on the performance of one player, but i don't think there's a whole lot between the two, it just means if you lack that star player you need to have a few players on the rung below.

[LostDoggy]

I think Rocket has built a list with a bigger spread of guys who can fire in big games. Aker and Bazza are proven match-winners from other clubs, Johnno has won games off his own boot, as has Coons. Griff and Higgo and Hill are next in line to be gamebreakers, and Lake and Gilbee can justifiably be seen to be game deciders in a slightly different way as well. Like soupaman said, they probably just don't do it week after week (some of the older guys used to but not as much anymore) like your Gabletts and Riewoldts.

The idea that we do not have the absolute cream is debatable anyway. Top 10 lists tend to have a spread of midfielders, forwards and defenders, so Coons would be considered the third or fourth best midfielder in the comp with Boydy not far behind, Lake the first or second best full-back, Morris is the best pound-for-pound defender in the league, Gilbs the best kick, Johnno and Aker and Bazza have all been top tenners, and we haven't even spoken about Gia (who is severely underrated) and Crossy. That's as many top line players as any other team in the comp bar Geelong.

Anyway, I think the argument was settled for the Dogs a long time ago when we probably had as good a top 6 (Grant, West, Darc, etc.) as anyone else in the comp but couldn't win or get to the big one. Now our players from 10-20 are better than anyone's and we are a far, far better and more flexible outfit for it. I mean, Hill and Everitt are no shoo-ins, but on pretty much any other list, they would both be walk-up starts.

--

ps. On a slightly related topic, this is why I think the Melbournes and Richmonds of this world are going to have a rude shock going down their 'youth policy' paths. No one bar Hawthorn has done it, and only on the back of a 120 goal season by a freak forward and very good veteran talent in Crawf, Croad and Dew. If our top draft picks like Coons and Griff have taken so long and struggled to cement their spot in the elite, and have only done so in a very very good team over many years, Richmond and Melbourne are kidding themselves if they think that their Scullys and Trengroves and Martins and Wattses will automatically develop themselves into elite players in a losing team with no support. What was the statistic yesterday? Richmond's pathetic 22 had something like 8 top ten picks, and another six were picks between 10-20 -- that's 14 players from the top 20. Top draft picks alone don't a good team make.

[FrediKanoute]

ps. On a slightly related topic, this is why I think the Melbournes and Richmonds of this world are going to have a rude shock going down their 'youth policy' paths. No one bar Hawthorn has done it, and only on the back of a 120 goal season by a freak forward and very good veteran talent in Crawf, Croad and Dew. If our top draft picks like Coons and Griff have taken so long and struggled to cement their spot in the elite, and have only done so in a very very good team over many years, Richmond and Melbourne are kidding themselves if they think that their Scullys and Trengroves and Martins and Wattses will automatically develop themselves into elite players in a losing team with no support. What was the statistic yesterday? Richmond's pathetic 22 had something like 8 top ten picks, and another six were picks between 10-20 -- that's 14 players from the top 20. Top draft picks alone don't a good team make.

Never really considered that. I guess its a myth which we believe that drafting leads to cycles of dominance etc. I guess the one thing sides which have drafted well have had though is a good mix of players. The problem at Melbourne (and Carlton) as I see it is that the guys have no experienced players to show them how to win a game of footy. We were lucky to have that with Granty, Johnno, Westy, Smithy and Darcy.

Certainly one thing Lids and Tambling have lacked is quality players to show them how to win. I wonder whether Scully et al will have the same problems.

[LostDoggy]

Which leads me to the question...What is more preferable to have when the stakes are at their highest in September? An even spread of talent (whereby the bench players can make a significant impact as fatigue starts to set in the 2nd half of finals), or absolute top-shelf talent that can help get you over the line in a close final (with a sprinkling of robotic spuds that are programmed to just do the basics within the game plan)? Last year's prelimiary final loss would point to the latter (ie: Hayes and Riewoldt almost single-handedly getting St Kilda over the line) but then there are other examples of the former being a more valuable asset come September (ie: the West Coast and Adelaide premiership teams in the 90's that had very valuable contributions from their lower profile players, while superstar laden teams like Geelong and St Kilda could not get over the line). Would be great to get other people's thoughts.

You can have both an even spread of players or a solid sprinkling of star players but I think the most important ingredient to a successful September is players that step up on the big occasions.

[Bulldog Joe]

The drafting example is valid. It is not a succession of top picks that have made Geelong and us good sides, but drafting several very good players that grow and develop together.

Look at the 99 draft and you see a fair nucleus for both teams right through the draft rounds.

Maybe the difference is actually in how the draftee development is handled.

[Sockeye Salmon]

The drafting example is valid. It is not a succession of top picks that have made Geelong and us good sides, but drafting several very good players that grow and develop together.

Look at the 99 draft and you see a fair nucleus for both teams right through the draft rounds.

Maybe the difference is actually in how the draftee development is handled.

Have a look at our backline, for starters.

Harbrow - rookie
Lake - pick 70-odd
Morris - rookie
Gilbee - pick 47(?)
Williams - pick 6
Hargrave - pick 70-odd

The only dodgy one in our backline is the top 10 pick.

[Go_Dogs]

Have a look at our backline, for starters.

Harbrow - rookie
Lake - pick 70-odd
Morris - rookie
Gilbee - pick 47(?)
Williams - pick 6
Hargrave - pick 70-odd

The only dodgy one in our backline is the top 10 pick.

Also worth noting that the majority of those guys are 27+ now - mature bodies who have played a lot of football.

Harbrow came along a lot last year and really cemented a spot, and we hope Williams will be able to stay on the park and do the same. If both players didn't have such quality around them, bringing them in and allowing them to develop wouldn't be such an easy task either.

The make up of the senior list is always an interesting analysis. History also shows the 1999 draft was just such an important one for us, as BJ mentioned above.

Besides Cross, our 2000 draft is a write off, ditto 2001 with Lake.

Of 2002, only Minson remains, as does Cooney from 2003, with Griffen, Williams and Tiller still on our list from the 2004 draft.

That demonstrates to me that:

a) We didn't really have the ability to develop players well during the 90's-early-00's as we simply didn't retain many draft selections, and our best work was done with selections outside the first round.

Since 2003 our record has been a bit better as far as retaining players and developing them, although we still can't really answer questions about a significant portion of the players from that era point onwards as they just haven't played enough football for whatever reasons - so we just don't know if they are going to make it.

and

b) That the draft, and re-building through the draft, is anything but an exact science. List management and recruiting in general has improved, so it's becoming easier theoretically, but there are still so many uncertains involved when drafting 17-18 year old kids.

You really need to be able to supplement the National Draft selections with sound trading and hope that you unearth a couple of 150+ gamers through the Rookie Draft. We've been able to do both in the past 5-6 years, so we are really building a very competitive, and deep, list.



If you can identify enough talent, you then need to develop it into AFL quality, and I think that is where a lot of teams are let down. They don't seem to have solid systems to structure the development of the kids.

At the end of the day, there is no guaranteed way to develop players - but they need to be given every opportunity to build into their training and playing routines so that their bodies can survive the development well enough to allow them to get on the park week in week out. Some are obviously more developed or come from more elite training backgrounds and can make the step up more easily, but others can't and they're the ones that need extra management and care short-term for the longer term gain.

[alwaysadog]

While recognising that we need quality on the list, two points stand out

1. Once a side wins a flag the media discover champions they previously didn't recognise

2. A champion team will beat a team of champions

[Sockeye Salmon]

While recognising that we need quality on the list, two points stand out

1. Once a side wins a flag the media discover champions they previously didn't recognise

2. A champion team will beat a team of champions

Heard on the radio on the weekend that Cam Mooney should be recognised as one of the modern greats because he is a three time premiership player.


(For those that don't remember he won a premiership with North in 99 but didn't actually get on the ground at all)

[Sedat]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/can-collingwood-win-a-flag-without-a-superstar-20100401-ri3p.html

Interesting article in The Age today comparing Collingwood's 2010 squad, without any bonefide superstars, to the 2002 team that had one superstar and quite a few donkeys. The article suggests that recent history would point to the need for premiership teams to have 1-2 superstars in their group, although I'm not sure I totally agree with this argument.

[Sockeye Salmon]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/can-collingwood-win-a-flag-without-a-superstar-20100401-ri3p.html

Interesting article in The Age today comparing Collingwood's 2010 squad, without any bonefide superstars, to the 2002 team that had one superstar and quite a few donkeys. The article suggests that recent history would point to the need for premiership teams to have 1-2 superstars in their group, although I'm not sure I totally agree with this argument.

Some players do tend to become superstars after the event, after all, they are a "premiership player" now, they must be better.

[LostDoggy]

Removing my red, white & blue hat for a second. I'd take our model any day of the week. Teams with a strong player in every position will get you over the line more often than not.

[Scorlibo]

I think Lake and Cooney are both in the top dozen or so players in the league, and that gives us more than our fair share. Plus Griffen and Higgins could move to that bracket this season, who knows.

[Sedat]

BUMP

When things get really tight, none of our leaders seem capable of commanding the ball and willing the team over the line. Hayes has now done it twice in a row. Are any of our emerging players going to take that step into the elite? Will they directly influence matches against quality opposition that are on a knife-edge?

[boydogs]

BUMP

When things get really tight, none of our leaders seem capable of commanding the ball and willing the team over the line. Hayes has now done it twice in a row. Are any of our emerging players going to take that step into the elite? Will they directly influence matches against quality opposition that are on a knife-edge?

Reid has done it at VFL level. Looking forward to him coming in and helping us climb the ladder

[The Bulldogs Bite]

BUMP

When things get really tight, none of our leaders seem capable of commanding the ball and willing the team over the line. Hayes has now done it twice in a row. Are any of our emerging players going to take that step into the elite? Will they directly influence matches against quality opposition that are on a knife-edge?

I think it's a serious worry. Our senior players (Cross, Hahn, Murphy, Gia, Johnson, Aker, Eagleton) struggle to have an influence when it counts. Higgins goes missing far too often whilst Cooney can be pretty wasteful with his disposal. Griffen has proven to stand up in pressure cookers - although I can't remember how he went late in last night's game.

Either way I agree with you Sedat. How often do you see Hayes/Montagna/Riewoldt push them over the line, Ablett/Bartel/Selwood for Geelong, Mitchell/Sewell for Hawthorn etc.

We have a lot of players who do well when the team is playing pretty football. However, when the tide turns and the pressure is placed onto us - not many of them stand up.

[AndrewP6]

I think it's a serious worry. Our senior players (Cross, Hahn, Murphy, Gia, Johnson, Aker, Eagleton) struggle to have an influence when it counts. Higgins goes missing far too often whilst Cooney can be pretty wasteful with his disposal. Griffen has proven to stand up in pressure cookers - although I can't remember how he went late in last night's game.

Either way I agree with you Sedat. How often do you see Hayes/Montagna/Riewoldt push them over the line, Ablett/Bartel/Selwood for Geelong, Mitchell/Sewell for Hawthorn etc.

We have a lot of players who do well when the team is playing pretty football. However, when the tide turns and the pressure is placed onto us - not many of them stand up.

Have to agree, unfortunately... our leadership group needs to step into the roomful of mirrors, I think.