Any surprises here from Andrejs Everitt?

[ratsmac]

Just wondering if anyone is surprised by the form of Andrejs Everitt at his new club. He hasn't set the world on fire but he looks like he has slotted in quite nicely and seems to be a handy defender that can go forward and kick a goal or two.

I was a tad upset we let him go because I always thought that he had a lot more improvement in him. I'm not surprised that he is playing the way he is at the moment although I'm not sure if he can keep it up.

He had definitely fallen from grace in Eade's eyes from which it is hard to come back from (just ask Jade Rawlings), although Josh Hill is making the most of his opportunities this year.

Did we let him go a year too early???

[Rocco Jones]

Jade Rawlings fall from grace was his body.

I didn't think we should have let Dre go and rate him highly but I don't think he has been a 'handy' defender for them. He had been pretty ordinary up until that great last quarter forward. He spent the first half being absolutely owned by Lynch down back. I, as well as a lot of our fans I know, were surprised/disappointed Dre didn't get much of a go up forward for us.

I'm thankful we kept Hill that's for sure.

[Sedat]

Is this the same Everitt that was torched by Quentin Lynch and had 4 goals kicked on him in the first half? Terrific effort to come back and make an impact when moved forward, but he was picked up by the Swans as a defender. If he suddenly morphs into a permanent key forward that kickes bags of 4 every week for the Swans, then I'll worry.

[azabob]

Is this the same Everitt that was torched by Quentin Lynch and had 4 goals kicked on him in the first half? Terrific effort to come back and make an impact when moved forward, but he was picked up by the Swans as a defender. If he suddenly morphs into a permanent key forward that kickes bags of 4 every week for the Swans, then I'll worry.

Exactly my thoughts Sedat.

Will be interesting to see how they play him especially with Craig Bolton retiring which means that Ted Richards, LRT and now Everitt all have to go up the pecking ordering in picking up opposition forwards.

[ratsmac]

Lol sorry didn't realise that Lynch kicked 4 goals on him. I did only catch parts of the second half in which he was good. My bad, but Lynch has kicked a bag on Lake in the past too so that can happen to the best as well :P From the games I have seen him play in the pre-season and the first couple of rounds, I thought he was serviceable down back.

[bornadog]

Lazy on the training track and lazy on game day. Yes he has talent but no intensity and very laid back

I wonder how is golf swing practise is going

[Rocco Jones]

Lazy on the training track and lazy on game day. Yes he has talent but no intensity and very laid back

I wonder how is golf swing practise is going

I agree that he has massive intensity issues but any potential blame to Eade for not changing that? We don't question the fact that Dre has intensity issues, no doubt in my mind but I also question Eade for Dre's failure at our club.

The golf swing practice reaction is a bit much IMO. If it was Cooney it would have been seen as somewhat charming.

[Doc26]

I didn't think we should have let Dre go and rate him highly but I don't think he has been a 'handy' defender for them. He had been pretty ordinary up until that great last quarter forward. He spent the first half being absolutely owned by Lynch down back. I, as well as a lot of our fans I know, were surprised/disappointed Dre didn't get much of a go up forward for us.

I'm thankful we kept Hill that's for sure.

I would have preferred to have kept Dre and also rate him highly. Personally I believe it was as much a failing of our coaching staff to not bring him on. If he is given time, nutured so that he grows in confidence then the Swans again will have picked up a bargain trade. He might've been 'owned' by Lynch in the first half but among other Swans in that last quarter was key to taking home the four points. I would still back Dre's upside more than what I've see in Vez. who looks too slow and one dimensional as a small forward. And this golf swing example that keeps getting thrown up should hardly define what he can and should be able to achieve, unfortunately now for the Swans.

[Rocco Jones]

I would have preferred to have kept Dre and also rate him highly. Personally I believe it was as much a failing of our coaching staff to not bring him on. If he is given time, nutured so that he grows in confidence then the Swans again will have picked up a bargain trade. He might've been 'owned' by Lynch in the first half but among other Swans in that last quarter was key to taking home the four points. I would still back Dre's upside more than what I've see in Vez. who looks too slow and one dimensional as a small forward.

As much as I say I would have proffered to keep Dre, it did look like he would never really make it at our club. Once again, I definitely believe Dre has the lion's share of the blame for that but Eade has his share too.

[Doc26]

As much as I say I would have proffered to keep Dre, it did look like he would never really make it at our club. Once again, I definitely believe Dre has the lion's share of the blame for that but Eade has his share too.

I agree with the bolded point. So although I would've preferred to have kept him under different circumstances, it was no use having him as some failed list clogger and put up as an archetype for lack of intensity / determination.

[Maddog37]

Some players just need a change in environment. Not all player/coaches get along and that is human nature. Would love to have seen him be a succesful Dogs player but he is gone, simple as that.

[AndrewP6]

Not surprised, in as much as a lot of players initially do well at their new clubs. Would be very surprised if he was to maintain it for an extended period. Agree with those who note his spanking up until the fourth qtr.

[Rocco Jones]

Not surprised, in as much as a lot of players initially do well at their new clubs. Would be very surprised if he was to maintain it for an extended period. Agree with those who note his spanking up until the fourth qtr.

He also had two ordinary games to start the season off before that. Basically, he has had one great quarter and nothing else so far.

[Sedat]

He also had two ordinary games to start the season off before that. Basically, he has had one great quarter and nothing else so far.
Such is the general malaise plaguing AFL journalism today - they are so lazy en masse that they don't even bother to watch more that the cursory highlights package from certain games and then form judgements on those games accordingly. Everitt was good enough to get himself into the right position 3 times late in the piece, but how did the ball get to these one-on-one opps in the first place? How did Dre perform in the other 3 qtrs, let alone the first 2 matches? Mind-bogglingly poor attention to detail.

Grant Thomas on Footy Classified was only too happy to proclaim that Sydney's system has transformed Everitt into another one of their quality recruits from another club - would like to see more evidence than a 10 minute cameo that was forced upon the club, as the player in question was getting smashed in his primary role, to prove this theory correct.

[azabob]

I agree that he has massive intensity issues but any potential blame to Eade for not changing that? We don't question the fact that Dre has intensity issues, no doubt in my mind but I also question Eade for Dre's failure at our club.

The golf swing practice reaction is a bit much IMO. If it was Cooney it would have been seen as somewhat charming.


As much as I say I would have proffered to keep Dre, it did look like he would never really make it at our club. Once again, I definitely believe Dre has the lion's share of the blame for that but Eade has his share too.

What should have Eade and Co done differently?

[Rocco Jones]

What should have Eade and Co done differently?

I was too definitive in my 2nd post about Eade. I am not sure Eade could have done anything else, I am just not so quick to base 100% of the blame on Dre that's all.

[azabob]

I was too definitive in my 2nd post about Eade. I am not sure Eade could have done anything else, I am just not so quick to base 100% of the blame on Dre that's all.

Fair enough. It must have also been frustrating from Eade's point of view as well. Problem was Everitt showed glimpses in 2007 as a loose 3rd man up and perhaps a glimpse in a few games here and there but for a while he was last in, first out rightly or wrongly.

[Doc26]

What should have Eade and Co done differently?

Playing him with some regularity might've been a start. We've been happy to bleed Tom Williams in with regular game time under the guise of being a 'project' player. I remain unconvinced we afforded the same luxury to Andrejs.

Dre never struck me as a type with an abundance of self confidence. By not showing more faith in him when he has shown he does at least have the skills to have made a good go of it, even if not displaying the right attitude, we can only now wonder what could've been. Maybe we will get to see this under Longmire's regime.

[LostDoggy]

He has played 1 good quarter in 12

Think we should look at him after 10 or so rounds

[immortalmike]

Playing him with some regularity might've been a start. We've been happy to bleed Tom Williams in with regular game time under the guise of being a 'project' player. I remain unconvinced we afforded the same luxury to Andrejs.

Dre never struck me as a type with an abundance of self confidence. By not showing more faith in him when he has shown he does at least have the skills to have made a good go of it, even if not displaying the right attitude, we can only now wonder what could've been. Maybe we will get to see this under Longmire's regime.

Could the difference between the two players you have mentioned be that Tom had a defined role and position (in which we lacked players) i.e., that of a key position backman, whereas Everitt did not? Furthermore by all reports Tom is one of the best trainers on our team and has a very good attitude whereas I've never heard this of Dre.

Could this mixture of uncertain role and questionable attitude along with not taking his chances when they were given have forced Rocket to trade Dre?

[Doc26]

He has played 1 good quarter in 12

Think we should look at him after 10 or so rounds

No one on this thread at least is saying he's made it. He still has a long way to go to stamp himself as someone who can reach and stay at the required standard. If he is to be played forward with regularity then the heat will be on Dre when he starts being marked by your Maxwell's, O'Brien's and Co.. How he stands up to this when no longer being some surprise second half switch will be the mark on him ?

[Doc26]

Could this mixture of uncertain role and questionable attitude along with not taking his chances when they were given have forced Rocket to trade Dre?

I always saw Dre's positional flexibility, particularly with the changing face of the game, as an asset.

Think the questionable attitude was his death knell and in the end it needed to be, it's just a shame it had to get to that point, that he couldn't have been coached out of it.

There's a pile of skillful players on the heap that haven't cut it due to sub standard attitude.

And if i might take the liberty of taking a memorable quote from Cool Hand Luke.

"What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men"

[bornadog]

I agree that he has massive intensity issues but any potential blame to Eade for not changing that? We don't question the fact that Dre has intensity issues, no doubt in my mind but I also question Eade for Dre's failure at our club.

The golf swing practice reaction is a bit much IMO. If it was Cooney it would have been seen as somewhat charming.

FYI, the club tried everything but its in his nature and he won't change.

[Rocco Jones]

FYI, the club tried everything but its in his nature and he won't change.

Thanks for the info mate. I am not doubting your info at all, just 'we tried everything' line can be very relative. I work as a teacher, not saying it's too much like coaching but that line really does remind me of teachers who say 'I have tried everything, he is just a rotten kid'.

Is it tried everything or tried everything you know player management style?

Really want to stress the point that I am not necessarily putting any blame on Rocket, just find the ''it's totally Dre's fault'' no questions asked belief a tad dismissive. If he fails at Swans, Eade will be proven without a doubt but if he becomes a gun, I will find the 'change in environment' a bit of a convenient out.

[LostDoggy]

As someone else has said, in the end, he is gone. If he makes it, well and good for him, but he didn't show me enough to feel particularly sad about his trade.

[Rocco Jones]

As someone else has said, in the end, he is gone. If he makes it, well and good for him, but he didn't show me enough to feel particularly sad about his trade.

I think that's the best approach to take.

I'm being a devil's advocate at sorts. At worst, I think our share of the blame is minimal anyway. No doubt that Dre's intensity just wasn't up to it and outside of that quarter, he has had the same deer in headlights/aloof look for them that he had for us.

[AndrewP6]

As someone else has said, in the end, he is gone. If he makes it, well and good for him, but he didn't show me enough to feel particularly sad about his trade.

Hear hear.

[GVGjr]

Lazy on the training track and lazy on game day. Yes he has talent but no intensity and very laid back


He was a laconic type when we drafted him so what changed?
We had teams interested in trading for him 12 months earlier but thought we could turn it around so it looks like mistakes were made by both the club and the player.



I wonder how is golf swing practise is going

It's strange because if you practice a few air gold swings you are quickly branded as lazy.
Surf an esky lid down the street and you are still right in the mix to be the captain of the club.

Players like Everitt frustrate me but I do believe he has the talent to become a good footballer.
If the Swans take him to another level then our development programme might have missed a good opportunity.

[Sockeye Salmon]

It's strange because if you practice a few air gold swings you are quickly branded as lazy.
Surf an esky lid down the street and you are still right in the mix to be the captain of the club.



One was done in the last training night before the finals by a player hoping to be the last player selected.

The other happened on holidays. Big difference.



If Everitt would do what was asked of him he would still be there; he wouldn't or couldn't.


I hope he plays 200 games for the Swans, it will mean that they're crap for the next 10 years.

[bulldogtragic]

I'd rather focus on what we've got. A ready made top round pick small forward with skill. Goodbye to Dre i say.

[GVGjr]

One was done in the last training night before the finals by a player hoping to be the last player selected.

The other happened on holidays. Big difference.


It actually says more about the selection processes the club has in place and how they apply them.

They were always looking to find a reason not to play Everitt and a few air golf shots is actually a very lame excuse. They would have been far better off just saying his form didn't warrant the selection.

So many people accept the esky surfing as just a holiday prank. The player concerned missed finals through a serious injury and yet the act on holidays had a fair bit of potential to inflame that injury further. On top of that it didn't show good judgment and probably highlighted poor leadership potential and yet it didn't cancel him out of the captaincy race.

[AndrewP6]

They were always looking to find a reason not to play Everitt and a few air golf shots is

Pardon my ignorance, but what's the story with the air golf?

[azabob]

Pardon my ignorance, but what's the story with the air golf?

I am assuming during training in prelim final week he practised his golf swing, kind of like playing air guitar??

[LostDoggy]

It actually says more about the selection processes the club has in place and how they apply them.

They were always looking to find a reason not to play Everitt and a few air golf shots is actually a very lame excuse. They would have been far better off just saying his form didn't warrant the selection.

So many people accept the esky surfing as just a holiday prank. The player concerned missed finals through a serious injury and yet the act on holidays had a fair bit of potential to inflame that injury further. On top of that it didn't show good judgment and probably highlighted poor leadership potential and yet it didn't cancel him out of the captaincy race.

That's exactly what I said at the time, Gary. Lack of intensity has been used as an excuse for the under-development/delisting/trading of our recruits once too often for me (I count at least 6 players in the last 5 years) -- like you said, these character traits were known prior to drafting, so our recruitment policy should at least take some blame. We seem to have gone in a different direction the last couple of drafts though, so it seems we're at least learning from our mistakes.

Your point about leadership is also a good one: the lack of off-field influence that our leadership group (nevermind the coach) has over the attitudes of junior players also says something uncomplimentary about our culture.

[Go_Dogs]

Think his best spot is still going to be as a 3rd tall who can lead up. Good user, and can kick a long goal.

[bornadog]

That's exactly what I said at the time, Gary. Lack of intensity has been used as an excuse for the under-development/delisting/trading of our recruits once too often for me (I count at least 6 players in the last 5 years) -- like you said, these character traits were known prior to drafting, so our recruitment policy should at least take some blame. We seem to have gone in a different direction the last couple of drafts though, so it seems we're at least learning from our mistakes.

Your point about leadership is also a good one: the lack of off-field influence that our leadership group (nevermind the coach) has over the attitudes of junior players also says something uncomplimentary about our culture.

To make it at AFL level these days you have to keep up the intensity for almost 100% of the time on game day. You have to show the passion and the pain at training. The club can coach, train, provide the best facilities, but if the player hasn't got it in them there isnot much you can do.

The comment on 6 players, well it could be ten or more, I am not sure if you are trying to blame the club for this. You don't know these things when you recruit at age 17/18. The years from 18 to 20 are the years where most teenagers either drop off from elite sport or they have the passion in them to go on with it. The drop out rate is unbelievable and a lot of them don't want to put the hard work in to make it to the top. This is not a fault of our club, its just part of life.

Go down to the club and have a look at the facilities, the number of coaches, the fitness training, the recovery facilities, the physios etc etc and you will see these kids are given every chance. The difference between making it and not making it is a fine line and its mostly in the head.

Everitt was given every chance to prove himself and for example, was told there was one more spot available for the 2010 preliminary final, but guess what he didn't want it bad enough. The club developed him for 3 to 4 years, the club knew he had talent, but it gets back to the individual and sometimes you can only go so far. maybe a change of scenery, maybe something will trigger it and he will get the message that at the elite level you can't just rely on talent alone. There are thousands out there with similar talent, but only a few make it every year.

But please you can't blame the club for players lacking intensity and the passion to play.

[AndrewP6]

To make it at AFL level these days you have to keep up the intensity for almost 100% of the time on game day. You have to show the passion and the pain at training. The club can coach, train, provide the best facilities, but if the player hasn't got it in them there isnot much you can do.

The comment on 6 players, well it could be ten or more, I am not sure if you are trying to blame the club for this. You don't know these things when you recruit at age 17/18. The years from 18 to 20 are the years where most teenagers either drop off from elite sport or they have the passion in them to go on with it. The drop out rate is unbelievable and a lot of them don't want to put the hard work in to make it to the top. This is not a fault of our club, its just part of life.

Go down to the club and have a look at the facilities, the number of coaches, the fitness training, the recovery facilities, the physios etc etc and you will see these kids are given every chance. The difference between making it and not making it is a fine line and its mostly in the head.

Everitt was given every chance to prove himself and for example, was told there was one more spot available for the 2010 preliminary final, but guess what he didn't want it bad enough. The club developed him for 3 to 4 years, the club knew he had talent, but it gets back to the individual and sometimes you can only go so far. maybe a change of scenery, maybe something will trigger it and he will get the message that at the elite level you can't just rely on talent alone. There are thousands out there with similar talent, but only a few make it every year.

But please you can't blame the club for players lacking intensity and the passion to play.

Great post.

[GVGjr]

To make it at AFL level these days you have to keep up the intensity for almost 100% of the time on game day. You have to show the passion and the pain at training. The club can coach, train, provide the best facilities, but if the player hasn't got it in them there isnot much you can do.



All very true but if the character flaws are there when a player is drafted and you can't turn it around is it still just the players fault or a combination of less than committed effort from the player and a club who thought that they could lift his intensity and then didn't?

Both the player and the club missed this opportunity.



But please you can't blame the club for players lacking intensity and the passion to play.


I think you can when the club had an offer 12 months earlier for the player but sang all the right tunes in the media that he was a required player and even re-signed him.
Obviously they backed themselves to turn it around but 12 months later finally bit the bullet.
Do they not get a fail mark for that?

We can point the finger at Everitt for not making the most of his opportunity, and I believe that to be correct, but the club also failed to make the right calls along the way and in the end a player with a lot of potential failed to reach his ability at our club.
He won't be the last to miss a great opportunity at our club but I'm not convinced that Everitt is the sole problem here.

[Flamethrower]

The main regret about Dre is that the next 2 players selected in the 2006 draft were James Frawley and Jack Riewoldt. Hindsight is always 20/20 but you would love either of those players on our list.

[bornadog]

All very true but if the character flaws are there when a player is drafted and you can't turn it around is it still just the players fault or a combination of less than committed effort from the player and a club who thought that they could lift his intensity and then didn't?

Both the player and the club missed this opportunity..

I don't know about the character flaws, but maybe the club thought they could help him turn it around. He was only 17 when drafted and as I said when young teenagers start to reach adulthood they can go either way. Obviosuly Everitt didn't. The club gave him his opportunities and he didn't take them


I think you can when the club had an offer 12 months earlier for the player but sang all the right tunes in the media that he was a required player and even re-signed him.
Obviously they backed themselves to turn it around but 12 months later finally bit the bullet.
Do they not get a fail mark for that? .

The club was happy to trade him but didn't get the right offer, you can't just give him away as they knew he had talent. So no, not a fail at all.



We can point the finger at Everitt for not making the most of his opportunity, and I believe that to be correct, but the club also failed to make the right calls along the way and in the end a player with a lot of potential failed to reach his ability at our club.
He won't be the last to miss a great opportunity at our club but I'm not convinced that Everitt is the sole problem here.

Don't understand what you mean by the right calls?

[Before I Die]

We can point the finger at Everitt for not making the most of his opportunity, and I believe that to be correct, but the club also failed to make the right calls along the way and in the end a player with a lot of potential failed to reach his ability at our club.

Sorry GVGjr, but I thonk you are (unintentionally) twisting circumstances to support your argument. Every player picked in any draft has potential and any player picked reasonably early has a lot of potential. But not all players, even early draft picks achieve that potential. Either you are making the claim that in each case this was partly the fault of the club they were recruited to, in which case all clubs are equally guilty, or you are claiming that Everitt's case is different to all the others. I think you are bringing your own prejudices to your decision making. Everitt played 36 games with us and a few of them were very good. He will probably end up playing in excess of 100 games over his entire career with quite a few more very good ones. This won't indicate any failing by the Dogs hierachy. He was on the cusp of selection with us each week, at another club it is reasonable to expect he could get a regular game. If he becomes an elite player then perhaps your argument has merit, though even then the question of whether any fault lay with the club would be debatable.

[GVGjr]

The club was happy to trade him but didn't get the right offer, you can't just give him away as they knew he had talent. So no, not a fail at all

Don't understand what you mean by the right calls?

The summary is

They drafted a laconic player who stayed laconic so if they thought they could change him they didn't.
The could have traded him 12 months earlier but again obviously backed themselves to change things.
And on top of that they didn't get the agreed deal for him when they did trade him.

The easy option is to just blame the player but I believe the club didn't get things right either.

[GVGjr]

Sorry GVGjr, but I thonk you are (unintentionally) twisting circumstances to support your argument. Every player picked in any draft has potential and any player picked reasonably early has a lot of potential. But not all players, even early draft picks achieve that potential. Either you are making the claim that in each case this was partly the fault of the club they were recruited to, in which case all clubs are equally guilty, or you are claiming that Everitt's case is different to all the others. I think you are bringing your own prejudices to your decision making. Everitt played 36 games with us and a few of them were very good. He will probably end up playing in excess of 100 games over his entire career with quite a few more very good ones. This won't indicate any failing by the Dogs hierachy. He was on the cusp of selection with us each week, at another club it is reasonable to expect he could get a regular game. If he becomes an elite player then perhaps your argument has merit, though even then the question of whether any fault lay with the club would be debatable.

I think your missing my point.
Bornadog's first response was to call him lazy and to use a reference of him taking golf swings during the finals campaign to support this view.
My response has been to highlight that I don't believe that practicing a few swings is that serious and certainly nothing when compared to an injured star player surfing an esky lid.
One player was getting ridiculed and cast as lazy and the other player was still right in the mix for the captaincy of the club.

The Everitt of 2010/11 is almost the same laconic type player he was when we drafted him and we knocked back a deal for him 12 months before eventually biting the bullet with him.
If the club had a plan to change his ethic they didn't.

[chef]

I think you can when the club had an offer 12 months earlier for the player but sang all the right tunes in the media that he was a required player and even re-signed him.
Obviously they backed themselves to turn it around but 12 months later finally bit the bullet.
Do they not get a fail mark for that?


Depends on how Vez and T.Hill go in their careers at the Dogs IMO as that's what we end up getting for Everitt.

[chef]

The summary is

They drafted a laconic player who stayed laconic so if they thought they could change him they didn't.
The could have traded him 12 months earlier but again obviously backed themselves to change things.
And on top of that they didn't get the agreed deal for him when they did trade him.

The easy option is to just blame the player but I believe the club didn't get things right either.

I was under the opinion that they didn't trade him last as they couldn't get his worth and didn't want to give him away cheaply(as he was still contracted), similar to what happen with Hill last year.

[comrade]

I was under the opinion that they didn't trade him last as they couldn't get his worth and didn't want to give him away cheaply(as he was still contracted), similar to what happen with Hill last year.

Good point. Hill seems to be relishing a 'second chance' and has taken his opportunity. Dre didn't.

[LostDoggy]

Good point. Hill seems to be relishing a 'second chance' and has taken his opportunity. Dre didn't.

Has he? Two okay (and nothing more than okay) games against non-existent opposition hardly counts as turning a career around. Mind you, I really hope he has, but plenty of the footage of his body language hasn't suggested that he's any less laconic in possession these days, and his disposal can still be as sloppy as ever.

Having said that, I think the only and main difference in Hill's performance this year is actually getting more involved in the play from half-back, and that's got nothing to do with attitude but where the coaching staff have played him -- he had the same intensity up front but was getting muscled off the ball as we tried to kick it onto his head. My point is, sure a player can and does change their attitudes, but rarely 180 degrees, and the coaching panel has as much responsibility for how a player is used and performs -- you can't put, say, Jobe Watson at full forward then complain that he lacks intensity because he can't take a pack mark against three gorillas and is too slow and tired from getting smashed around to chase. Sometimes 'lack of intensity' is just lack of confidence, which can be easily shattered in young players by a lack of trust from the coaches, or being used wrongly.

Heck, Harbrow was exactly the same player up forward and back, but was pilloried for being a headless chook with sloppy skills up forward but seen as a near-AA half-back. The point being that where and how a player is used can really impact on the perception of their performance.

[LostDoggy]

The comment on 6 players, well it could be ten or more, I am not sure if you are trying to blame the club for this. You don't know these things when you recruit at age 17/18. The years from 18 to 20 are the years where most teenagers either drop off from elite sport or they have the passion in them to go on with it. The drop out rate is unbelievable and a lot of them don't want to put the hard work in to make it to the top. This is not a fault of our club, its just part of life.

So what's the point of all that interviewing and external testing that the players get prior to draft day?

And are you saying that there isn't a difference between a club that recruits well and one that doesn't? That it's all just a crapshoot and based on luck, and that culture and development has nothing to do with how a player turns out?

If it WAS ten or more we would need a serious review of our recruitment and development areas. Make no mistake, in such an even competition recruitment and development are the areas you can least afford to get wrong. Just ask Wallet re: Richmond.


Go down to the club and have a look at the facilities, the number of coaches, the fitness training, the recovery facilities, the physios etc etc and you will see these kids are given every chance. The difference between making it and not making it is a fine line and its mostly in the head.

All the more reason to draft accordingly, right? If the difference is as fine as you've said, then why would we pick players with questionable attitudes to begin with? I've complimented the club on seeming to change their policies in light of recent failures, but as recently as last year we went for a player that was NEVER right in the head/attitude for AFL and didn't last more than half a year on the list (injury or not).

For some clubs, attitude is a non-negotiable with every player that they bring on to their list, so they will generally choose a marginally less 'talented' player with a better attitude vs one with marginally more talent (at 18, mind you) with a questionable attitude. Clubs like Sydney, Essendon and Geelong (and yes, Collingwood) have gone down this route. There are players in Collingwood's 22 that are so-so on skills but will play hard and follow their instructions to the letter. We seem to have done the reverse, where talent is the non-negotiable, not the attitude. Hawthorn are the extreme example of that bias. That's all well and good, but that's why Hawthorn cleared out 11 damaged players on their list last year, most of them 1st and 2nd round picks, are as inconsistent as the weather from year to year, and has a shithouse culture. That may also be why our consistency is all over the place and every week we have Rocket telling us that such-and-such player isn't following instructions, there are at least 3 players that have played in the last couple of weeks that are still 50/50 on the intensity issue, or that our entire midfield group fell asleep for Round 1.

I'm not bagging our entire recruitment strategy -- we've obviously done very well in many areas, but if Rocket has such a problem with low-intensity types I don't know why we seem to keep picking at least one such type in the draft each year.


Everitt was given every chance to prove himself and for example, was told there was one more spot available for the 2010 preliminary final, but guess what he didn't want it bad enough. The club developed him for 3 to 4 years, the club knew he had talent, but it gets back to the individual and sometimes you can only go so far. maybe a change of scenery, maybe something will trigger it and he will get the message that at the elite level you can't just rely on talent alone. There are thousands out there with similar talent, but only a few make it every year.

So we come back to the air swing? Look, the decision to play him or not was the match committee's, but in the few games he played up to that point he certainly wasn't the worst on the park by a long shot. Like Gary, I have no problem with him getting dropped on form or traded if the coaches thought it was best for the team, but I do have a problem with such a ridiculously simplistic way to view a player's attitude and how it shifts blame completely onto the player.


But please you can't blame the club for players lacking intensity and the passion to play.

Who else is there to blame? The players are PART of the club, so if we keep picking low-intensity types who's fault is that? You can't pick a fox and then blame them for eating all the hens. You seem to want to put 100% of the fault on the player, and while they have to take the overwhelming responsibility, many, many decisions made by the club, from recruitment, to development, to peer group culture, to coaching environment, to how the player is used in the structure, is part and parcel of every failure. I'm not saying Andrejs is blameless, he can be a lazy so-and-so, but I think it does the club a disservice to wash its hands of every recruitment that doesn't work out.

[Mantis]

Has he? Two okay (and nothing more than okay) games against non-existent opposition hardly counts as turning a career around. Mind you, I really hope he has, but plenty of the footage of his body language hasn't suggested that he's any less laconic in possession these days, and his disposal can still be as sloppy as ever.



He was also one of the few players who performed to an expected level against Essendon, a game in which most of his peers were very poor.

[Doc26]

Lantern & Gary, concur wholeheartedly with your views on this topic. Andrejs is not blameless, he has a big role to play in first reaching and staying at a required level. However the Club in this instance must take some degree of responsibility with what unfortunately ended up being a failed project with a high draft selection just as in the workplace where managers should be held in part responsible for poor recruitment practices, for not providing appropriate mentoring and support, or for neglecting ongoing staff development with the aim of bringing about a highly motivated and functioning Team. I see it as a cop out, and as would my management, if I could simply lay all blame on my direct reports for them failing to reach agreed objectives. The debate and point of difference here is really about who should wear responsibility for a failed project, to put it ALL on Andrejs is shortsighted and won't get us anywhere if that's accepted by the Club.

[GVGjr]

I was under the opinion that they didn't trade him last as they couldn't get his worth and didn't want to give him away cheaply(as he was still contracted), similar to what happen with Hill last year.

My understanding was the club would not trade unless another club was prepared to pay over the odds to get him. At the time he was regarded as a required player but not so 12 months later.

As I have previously mentioned laconic players like Everitt frustrate me so I can understand why the club makes the move but blaming just the player I don't think is correct. He's a large part of the problem but not 100% of it.

[Desipura]

My understanding was the club would not trade unless another club was prepared to pay over the odds to get him. At the time he was regarded as a required player but not so 12 months later.

As I have previously mentioned laconic players like Everitt frustrate me so I can understand why the club makes the move but blaming just the player I don't think is correct. He's a large part of the problem but not 100% of it.

We have a history of recruiting a number of laconic types ie Ray, Power, Stack, Everitt & Hill to name just a few.

[bornadog]

We have a history of recruiting a number of laconic types ie Ray, Power, Stack, Everitt & Hill to name just a few.

You can't just say this is a Western Bulldogs thing. All clubs have this type, because the point I am making there is a massive jump in the intensity required at AFL to TEAL cup or VFL. Some players make the leap forward and others don't. Ray has now played in several grandfinals and is doing the job the Saints want him to. Stack is going in harder this year and just lacked confidence and Hill had personal problems that influenced him but hopefully are now resolved. What I am saying is others like Everitt are given the opportunity but sometimes they don't take that opportunity. Maybe Everitt needed a change in work environment, we don't all get along with our work mates.

[bornadog]

So what's the point of all that interviewing and external testing that the players get prior to draft day?

And are you saying that there isn't a difference between a club that recruits well and one that doesn't? That it's all just a crapshoot and based on luck, and that culture and development has nothing to do with how a player turns out? .

Don't put words into my mouth. All that testing, and interviewing could turn to crack shit if something within the players brain changes. I have spoken to many elite sporting coaches, including Bill Davoren who has been to three plus Olympics and upteen Commwealth games and they all say the same thing about teenagers and the drop out rate. I am not just talking Footy but all sports suffer the same thing. Talented individuals who all of a sudden decide they want to do something else. They may have gone through the vigorous testing etc, but when they find that there is hard work to do to get to the next level, they either try to hang in or drop out. No one knows why this happens, but it is more pronounced in elite sports that are not as popular.


All the more reason to draft accordingly, right? If the difference is as fine as you've said, then why would we pick players with questionable attitudes to begin with? I've complimented the club on seeming to change their policies in light of recent failures, but as recently as last year we went for a player that was NEVER right in the head/attitude for AFL and didn't last more than half a year on the list (injury or not).

.

Who says we pick players with questionable attitudes? Look not all recruits have the dedication and work ethic of a Libba and Wallis jnr. Most have to learn that to get to that next level you have to work very hard. The club works hard at teaching these kids and then its up to them.


So we come back to the air swing? Look, the decision to play him or not was the match committee's, but in the few games he played up to that point he certainly wasn't the worst on the park by a long shot. Like Gary, I have no problem with him getting dropped on form or traded if the coaches thought it was best for the team, but I do have a problem with such a ridiculously simplistic way to view a player's attitude and how it shifts blame completely onto the player. .

Sounds simplistic, maybe us posters have made it that way. We don't know what happens behind closed doors. For such an important time of the year ie finals, you want all your players focused and listening to the coach, not mucking around giving the MC the wrong message.




Who else is there to blame? The players are PART of the club, so if we keep picking low-intensity types who's fault is that? You can't pick a fox and then blame them for eating all the hens. You seem to want to put 100% of the fault on the player, and while they have to take the overwhelming responsibility, many, many decisions made by the club, from recruitment, to development, to peer group culture, to coaching environment, to how the player is used in the structure, is part and parcel of every failure. I'm not saying Andrejs is blameless, he can be a lazy so-and-so, but I think it does the club a disservice to wash its hands of every recruitment that doesn't work out.

I don't agree we pick low intensity types, you just made that up.

Of course the club has to take responsibility IF they don't look after a player, however, I believe we do look after players and we give them every chance to improve.

Go down to the club and see what is in place. Besides the facilities the support structure is fantastic. Of course it can be improved, but hey that requires more coaches, more staff and unfortunatley we don't have the funds for that.

[Doc26]

You can't just say this is a Western Bulldogs thing. All clubs have this type, because the point I am making there is a massive jump in the intensity required at AFL to TEAL cup or VFL. Some players make the leap forward and others don't. Ray has now played in several grandfinals and is doing the job the Saints want him to. Stack is going in harder this year and just lacked confidence and Hill had personal problems that influenced him but hopefully are now resolved. What I am saying is others like Everitt are given the opportunity but sometimes they don't take that opportunity. Maybe Everitt needed a change in work environment, we don't all get along with our work mates.

Agree BD although when looking for any competitive edge those that do perform better in this area are likely to reap rewards for it against those that may find some comfort in laying blame on others. I'm not saying we do, but if the Club makes an assessment that the failing of Everitt at out Club was all of his own doing, absolving itself of any responsibility other than to cut him loose, without learning from its mistakes whether back to recruitment philosophy or development practice then we will struggle against our competitors that do place value in self assessment.

[Sockeye Salmon]

We have a history of recruiting a number of laconic types ie Ray, Power, Stack, Everitt & Hill to name just a few.

Murphy

[bornadog]

but if the Club makes an assessment that the failing of Everitt at out Club was all of his own doing, absolving itself of any responsibility other than to cut him loose, without learning from its mistakes whether back to recruitment philosophy or development practice then we will struggle against our competitors that do place value in self assessment.

Only the Club knows this, we can only judge from the outside.

36 games tells you he was given every chance. Sometimes players just don't fit in with a club and they have to part ways.

[Desipura]

Murphy
I did not say its a bad thing so I dont know what you mean? You can add Higgins & Lake in there.

[comrade]

I did not say its a bad thing so I dont know what you mean? You can add Higgins & Lake in there.

And Cooney.

[Desipura]

And Cooney.
Gilbee & Gia as well although he has an intense look about him, has a laconic style though the way he plays.

[Doc26]

Lets not confuse someone's inner determination to succeed with how they present externally.

[Topdog]

I did not say its a bad thing so I dont know what you mean? You can add Higgins & Lake in there.

Pretty sure SS meant the other Murphy, not Bob

[ledge]

Pretty sure SS meant the other Murphy, not Bob

I rekon he meant Bob

[Sockeye Salmon]

I meant Bob. Good players can be relaxed, too.

[Topdog]

Subbed off again tonight. Didn't look up to it.

[Remi Moses]

What's Luke Darcy talking about! Same old Everitt for mine.

[chef]

What's Luke Darcy talking about! Same old Everitt for mine.

Yep, looked like the exact same player we had running around for us.

[bornadog]

What's Luke Darcy talking about! Same old Everitt for mine.

Darcy did say early on in the game, if Everitt doesn't lift his intensity at The Swans he won't last.

[LostDoggy]

What's Luke Darcy talking about! Same old Everitt for mine.

Yep, was the same ol', same ol', wasn't it? He doesn't appear to have changed his attitude at all. Being subbed-off was pretty pointed too, I thought!

[Mofra]

Same old Everitt for mine.
Yep.
He's a talent but he cannot nail down a position with any certainty. If he's in the 22 he will be the ~7th best at every position on the field.
He can't even work out where he wants to play. Not sure how Longmire will persist with a loose checking defender who doesn't put on real body pressure.

[EasternWest]

Yep.
He's a talent but he cannot nail down a position with any certainty. If he's in the 22 he will be the ~7th best at every position on the field.
He can't even work out where he wants to play. Not sure how Longmire will persist with a loose checking defender who doesn't put on real body pressure.

So who's ahead in the Everitt/Vez trade then?

Everitt has played a few games for them (and done ok for a quarter apparently) but Vez is yet to get into the side. Is it too early to tell/not as simple as that?

Not being a smart@rse, serious question.

[chef]

So who's ahead in the Everitt/Vez trade then?

Everitt has played a few games for them (and done ok for a quarter apparently) but Vez is yet to get into the side. Is it too early to tell/not as simple as that?

Not being a smart@rse, serious question.

Way to early to say. We also picked T.Hill with the pick we got with Vez.

[ledge]

Good point DFA but its not that simple, also depends on who Vespremi is up against in the senior side.
Maybe Longmire is throwing him in to see what Everitt can do in a position he lacks a player.

From what I saw today of Vespremi its a big win for us.

[Topdog]

So who's ahead in the Everitt/Vez trade then?

Everitt has played a few games for them (and done ok for a quarter apparently) but Vez is yet to get into the side. Is it too early to tell/not as simple as that?

Not being a smart@rse, serious question.

All of the bolded part. You really can only tell a trade winner at the end of all their careers (including Hill).

And there doesn't have to be a winner either. You can both win or both lose.

In this situation though I think even if Everitt goes on to win a brownlow we wont have lost as he simply was never going to do anything here. Some players need a change of environment. I personally don't believe that is Everitt's problem.

[mjp]

Everitt wasn't playing for us - nor is Vez. At this stage only Williamstown have been impacted by the trade...

It really doesn't matter to me what Sydney decide to do with Everitt and I only see the win/loss from our side. If Vez can work his way into things throughout the year I will be happy with that - our current match committee were done with Everitt so he was never going to be an asset for us.

[Sedat]

Way to early to say. We also picked T.Hill with the pick we got with Vez.
I thought the extra pick was used on Skinner?

[chef]

I thought the extra pick was used on Skinner?

Yeah, it was. But it(the extra pick) also allowed us to take T.Hill as well at the same time is what I was meant to say.

[ratsmac]

Everitt wasn't playing for us - nor is Vez. At this stage only Williamstown have been impacted by the trade...

It really doesn't matter to me what Sydney decide to do with Everitt and I only see the win/loss from our side. If Vez can work his way into things throughout the year I will be happy with that - our current match committee were done with Everitt so he was never going to be an asset for us.

That is very true and it looks like they were right in make the decision to move him on. If he were still on our list though they may have played him round 1 and 2 ahead of Marcovic and we may have never got to see what Marcovic has got. I am very pleased with what I seen of Lucas Marcovic so far. I suppose Everitt is more versatile than Marcovic that he can play forward as well, but Marcovic would have to be my pick of the two right now.

[Ghost Dog]

I personally don't believe that is Everitt's problem.[/QUOTE]

You feel he was hard done by?
I liked the way he played, but he seemed a little immature or lacking in that basic stuff, blocking and marking up, that Rocket demands. Personally, I wish he had stayed but very happy to have Marcovic. he seems a bit more reliable.

[LostDoggy]

Does anyone close to the club understand why Ves has yet to play AFL ? I only saw the first the first NAB cup effort and he looked good. Does he put in defensively?

[Topdog]

Nah GD I just don't think he is very good.

Some players can show great "potential" but not actually be very good. I think Everitt falls into this category.

[Ghost Dog]

Nah GD I just don't think he is very good.

Some players can show great "potential" but not actually be very good. I think Everitt falls into this category.

There were varying opinions about why he didn't seem able to break into the team.
I'd feel a bit better about it if Vez was up and about. I'm wondering the same thing as Marcov....
He seemed to do well in the NAB ( which I saw none of but read some reports ) but what's keeping him out?

[Before I Die]

There were varying opinions about why he didn't seem able to break into the team.
I'd feel a bit better about it if Vez was up and about. I'm wondering the same thing as Marcov....
He seemed to do well in the NAB ( which I saw none of but read some reports ) but what's keeping him out?

A broken finger for the next 4 weeks

[ledge]

Last i heard was only one week.

[Before I Die]

Last i heard was only one week.

The following is direct from the Bulldogs website. I acknowledge that they may not be the most accurate source, though they should be. Since the question referred to when he could make it into the ones, I would assume at least one comeback game would be necessary at Williamstown. Hence 4 weeks at a minimum and a marked improvement in performance.

Injury List
Ryan Hargrave - (ankle) 2-3 weeks
Daniel Giansiracusa - (hamstring) 1 week
Patrick Veszpremi - (hand) 3-4 weeks
Easton Wood - (ankle) 6-7 weeks

[Greystache]

No surprises here for me, omitted this week.

[Go_Dogs]

No surprises here for me, omitted this week.

I feel horrible for saying it, but it gave me a small amount of happiness seeing that.

Another young tall from SA gets his chance down back this week for the Swans.

[bornadog]

I feel horrible for saying it, but it gave me a small amount of happiness seeing that.

Another young tall from SA gets his chance down back this week for the Swans.

I know what you mean, but I feel it justifies our decision to trade him.

[ratsmac]

Yep, I'm definitely at ease with the decision to trade him.

[LostDoggy]

Yep, I'm definitely at ease with the decision to trade him.

I don't really care one way or another, other than it represents another wasted first round pick in an age group where we could REALLY use some quality right now.

[ratsmac]

I don't really care one way or another, other than it represents another wasted first round pick in an age group where we could REALLY use some quality right now.

If only there was a way of using draft picks using hindsight :D

[LostDoggy]

Dissapointed for both Everitt and Vez, I had thought that this was going to be a win win for both clubs.

At least Vez is injured and not dropped on form like Everitt, I guess its a pretty slippery slope when your at your second club.

Hope both eventually come good.

[Dancin' Douggy]

God, the natural talent and build that Everitt has is staggering.
Should be the next Goddard but I don't think, deep down, he really loves the game.

[LostDoggy]

God, the natural talent and build that Everitt has is staggering.
Should be the next Goddard but I don't think, deep down, he really loves the game.

Ah, one of those Nathan-Ablett-in-Brendan-Goddard's-Body types.