6 Games which are crucial to the careers of 13 tigers.

[benny_furs]

Can't believe the Newman for capt. push. Its ridiculous. Newman is a decent player, but captain?? come on.

Skip the damaged generation, a tough, elite complete player for captain, Deledio or Foley. flip a coin, end of story.

Spot on.

Newman is good, but not the modern day Jack Dyer by any means. Kane Johnson is a better player and leader, and even he gets bagged on here...



Also I'll spew up if we think about trading Hughes! He looks like a gun when he builds up his fitness and we need accurate forwards for a change!

It's going to be sweet in a couple of years when we play Hawthorn and the reason we beat them is because Buddy and Roughead miss half their shots while Jack/Cleve and Mitch are all nailing them from all angles! I can't wait ;D

 

[davidrodan]

I would look at trading Newman if the price is right

maybe Newman + 3rd for Sydney's 1st??

IMO you get the best trades with players that if the deal is not right then you can happily walk away
Newman is one of those players

Happy to keep him but if the right deal comes along then can trade knowing his role can be filled

 

[Streak]

Casserly deserves another year at Tigerland IMO. Don't care if it is on the list, or as a rookie.

Of the little I have seen of him, he looks like a footballer. If he could shake off his injuries, I think he has what it takes to get past a number of other players on our list.

Can't help but think of Kelvin Moore when I think of Travis. We persisted with Moore and it looks to have paid off. Give Casserly another year.

 

[Streak]

Interesting no one mentions Polo on their lists, imo he is no more a keeper than Raines, King, or Meyer..................... as for McGuane he certainly aint a keeper either.

There are plenty of players on the RFC list that are average and could be delisted tomorrow without hurting the clubs forward development especially if the draft is used properly..

The futures of Pettifer, Hyde and Tivendale should be not under question.

They should be the first 3 to get axed.

Goodness, I could have written this myself. Agree on all counts.

 

[craig]

Id trade Newman for the right price too.

In fact the list of untouchables at the Tigers going forward is very thin.

Many overate tiger players simply cos they are Tiger players.

Just cos they are at RFC doesnt mean that they are bonafides.

Actually more often than not it has meant the opposite.

 

[Ian4]

should be an interesting time come september/october this year. apart from the obvious rookies plus tiv/petts, i don't think many people now know who else is going to be delisted/traded this year. is that a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[craig]

The convolution of the draft from next year makes it more important to get rid of those who cant be afforded time.

The club must make 8- 10 changes inc rookie list but they wont and the Tigers will not improve there list structure again and then spend the next 3 years regretting it mid to bottom 8 as they have not built a solid future core with depth and strength in ruck key possies and key ball winners.

Richo, Simmo and Brown will be retiring by then.

The warning signs can already be seen.

 

[ToraToraTora]

I can see another BIG dip coming in the next couple of years...probably another wooden spoon maybe 2. Could be wrong I spose...naaah.

 

[linuscambridge]

The convolution of the draft from next year makes it more important to get rid of those who cant be afforded time.

The club must make 8- 10 changes inc rookie list but they wont and the Tigers will not improve there list structure again and then spend the next 3 years regretting it mid to bottom 8 as they have not built a solid future core with depth and strength in ruck key possies and key ball winners.

Richo, Simmo and Brown will be retiring by then.

The warning signs can already be seen.

I celebrate my 4 year aniversary on Pre in the next couple of weeks, and in that time Craig, Claw and others have called for 8-10 delistings every year.

I don't necessarily disagree on many of the players called upon to be delisted, but would intrigued at how the list would look if the Tigers had followed their advice.

My basic maths ability tells me that 10 players a year over 4 years equals 40. So the entire list of 2004 would be gone and we would be looking at delisting a bunch of 19, 20 and 21 year old players just to have a pick in the next draft. Clearly ridiculous and unsustainable.

I would suggest the Tigers this year will take at the most 4 players in the N.D., possibly only 3, none in the P.S.D. (we have only used this in the past for players like White and Gourdis when we have an early pick of the leftovers, not likely to happen this year), and all the rookies except Cartledge will go.

Pruning such a small amount of players off the list should be childs play. Players like Hyde, Tivendale, Jackson, JON, Meyer, Casserly, and of course Pettifer should all be a little worried.

 

[dcstar]

.......
I don't necessarily disagree on many of the players called upon to be delisted, but would intrigued at how the list would look if the Tigers had followed their advice.

My basic maths ability tells me that 10 players a year over 4 years equals 40. So the entire list of 2004 would be gone and we would be looking at delisting a bunch of 19, 20 and 21 year old players just to have a pick in the next draft. Clearly ridiculous and unsustainable.
........

Interesting that the club have said recently that in the time Wallace has been at the club we virtually have delisted that many players (or close to it), so your answer is to look at the list right now.

The issue has been that there is a balancing act as to how many that should be gone (to make room for players that might be better) for long-term gains versus the short-term pain you suffer on the field by not having those players that will help you be a 4-8 win a season AFL side on your list. When some people call for 10 to be delisted year after year, some of those mentioned are the same players who don't get delisted, so your maths are a little shaky.

I think that there can be a good case put up that if we had cut deeper in the first years when Wallace arrived we would be in a better position right now, but we took a more "pragmatic" path to win a few matches and keep the ferals satisfied (and always hopeful of the promised finals appearances "just a couple of seasons away"), so we are where we are......

Our biggest problem is still that we won't admit recruiting mistakes and cut players that just take too long to show enough. Yes some of them might eventually play some decent AFL senior football and even have one good season in their career, but the cost of that is too great for a club that is in our situation.

You invest time only in players that show above-average abilities initially and may become top-shelf AFL players, you don't waste time on list-cloggers who might - in the very best outcome - eventually just hold their place in a bottom-eight team.

 

[bullus_hit]

Are you serious David C? Claw and company were screaming for Moore to be delisted last year and look where that would have left us? I'd love to know who these 8-10 players are that should be delisted this year, this coming from posters who believe we have the second worst list in the competition.

Guys like Tivendale, Pettifer and Hyde are on their way out now but in all honesty, how many scrawny 17 and 18 year olds can you field without impeding on their long term development? For those who remember the Bartlett era, we cut short the careers of several very promising youngsters by placing too much strain on their growing bodies, as a result we entered perhaps the darkest period of the clubs history over the past 30 years.

The furphy that you need to thrust young players into the seniors immediately for long term success is quite popular amongst supporters but the reality is that no club in the competition is so foolhardy as to go down this path. How many reserves games did Franklin or Roughead play before cementing a senior place?

As for 2005, how many debutants were you expecting? That year we blooded Deledio, Tambling, Meyer, Polo, Patto, Thursfield and Foley. Some might argue that Graham was a waste but in the end it's hardly been a devastating impediment to our long term development.

 

[chislop]

The convolution of the draft from next year makes it more important to get rid of those who cant be afforded time.

The club must make 8- 10 changes inc rookie list but they wont and the Tigers will not improve there list structure again and then spend the next 3 years regretting it mid to bottom 8 as they have not built a solid future core with depth and strength in ruck key possies and key ball winners.

Richo, Simmo and Brown will be retiring by then.

The warning signs can already be seen.

wow, that's some crystal ball you've got there Craig. You already know what the club WONT do at the end of the year. Fancy letting us know what this week's lotto numbers are?

 

[linuscambridge]

wow, that's some crystal ball you've got there Craig. You already know what the club WONT do at the end of the year. Fancy letting us know what this week's lotto numbers are?

In fairness to Craig on this occasion he did say 8-10 including rookies, I still think this is over the odds, but if you were to get rid of Howatt, Sylvester and Cartledge you could grab 5 players in the main draft and still be on track with his estimates.

 

[jb03]

I celebrate my 4 year aniversary on Pre in the next couple of weeks, and in that time Craig, Claw and others have called for 8-10 delistings every year.

I don't necessarily disagree on many of the players called upon to be delisted, but would intrigued at how the list would look if the Tigers had followed their advice.

My basic maths ability tells me that 10 players a year over 4 years equals 40. So the entire list of 2004 would be gone and we would be looking at delisting a bunch of 19, 20 and 21 year old players just to have a pick in the next draft. Clearly ridiculous and unsustainable.

I would suggest the Tigers this year will take at the most 4 players in the N.D., possibly only 3, none in the P.S.D. (we have only used this in the past for players like White and Gourdis when we have an early pick of the leftovers, not likely to happen this year), and all the rookies except Cartledge will go.

Pruning such a small amount of players off the list should be childs play. Players like Hyde, Tivendale, Jackson, JON, Meyer, Casserly, and of course Pettifer should all be a little worried.

Can't you delist 8-10 players every year and four years later still only have 8-10 different players on your list?

 

[momentai]

Have to turn over players this year. Craig is absolutely right about that. We should have followed the Hawks approach years ago and traded some ageing stars for picks. We are still short of the top 6 and no where near top 4. As I've said earlier Brown and Newman at least should be moved on for early picks. And to state the bleeding obvious we are no where near the point where topping up with Daniel Kerr will get us closer to a flag.

No where near.

 

[Brettstigers]

Delist: Pettifer Tivendale Hyde Howat Sylvester (also what would Polaks situation be? Rookie list?)
Tradebait/Delist: Jackson Raines
Tradebait/Keep King McGuane JON Schulz Tuck Polo (all these players are replaceable but could be value to other clubs, if not, we keep them)
Last Chances Coughlan Casserly JON Meyer

That leaves us with 2 picks in the rookie draft.
At least 3 picks in the draft with a maximum of 5 from delistings. + picks from trades

This works for me with Sugar and Joel to retire 2009, and the big Richoman 2010.

 

[ronnit]

i dont think there will be too many trades etc this year..i think our young guys are really starting to gel and i love the way they look for each other out on the field..i think that too many delistings etc would unsettle the young guys as they have formed a really close knit group ...