Craig Cameron.

[Rosy]

We wrote Dave off easier than I thought then.  Apologies Phantom.  I thought he had 2 recos...must have got confused with his 2 League B&Fairests, whatever they're called.

 

[pahoffm]

We wrote Dave off easier than I thought then.  Apologies Phantom.  I thought he had 2 recos...must have got confused with Liston Medals. :hihi 

You may have got him confused with Marc Dragicevic.
http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/players/M/Marc_Dragicevic.html

Draga had multiple recos. Last I saw he was playing either SANFL or WAFL.

BTW, Dave's departure was really about a choice between he & Krakouer.
Dave's contract had run out, Krakouer still had a year on his.
That choice was made by Greg & Terry together.

The cost you pay for maintaining 28-30yos on your list is that it then pushes you to choose between younger developing players.

 

[damian]

You may have got him confused with Marc Dragicevic.
http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/players/M/Marc_Dragicevic.html

Draga had multiple recos. Last I saw he was playing either SANFL or WAFL.

Thanks to a typical hospital pass from Nick Daffy at the telstra dump. Glenn Archer crushed him.

 

[pahoffm]

Thanks to a typical hospital pass from Nick Daffy at the telstra dump. Glenn Archer crushed him.

Happens.

List management is about how you overcome those unforseen problems. Not sticking all your eggs into one basket.

 

[the claw]

Hi all,

Got to admit that I have a bias in relation to Craig Cameron so I might as well be up front with it.

Before Craig arrived at Richmond, I'd only met him at junior games to smile at when walking past. When he arrived, it was an opportunity to meet him and talk for the first time. We met a couple more times after and he asked me to assist him with some long term research projects.

I have two views of Craig Cameron - one, with his time at Melbourne, and two, in his short time with Richmond.

At Melbourne, Craig came into a job where the Melbourne list had already begun its window. Some of you may remember that.
Joe Gutnick was President, Neale Daniher had just entered as coach, Melbourne finished 4th. You might remember that they'd have one good year followed by a bad year followed by a good year, etc. They played in the GF in 2000. The focus of their list structure was to maintain that window for as long as possible. They played in finals 6 out of 9 years till 2006, without taking off the big one. In that time they introduced new players in Whelan, Thompson, Armstrong, Ferguson, Davey & Johnson. For me, the Dees started to decline in 2005, though they didn't officially go into a rebuilding phase till 2007. For the Dees, the cost of maintaining that window, in terms of mature age player contracts was hefty. It's the cost any club pays when it attempts to secure mature players. At Tigerland we overpaid enormously for our one finals appearance in 2001, and it's why I am so reticent towards players over 27yo. For me, you have to be an AFL star to stay on the list after 27, and an AFL icon after 30yo.

Yes, the Dees look bad now but I think they are setting themselves up for a new window in 3 years time. Just think how bad we were last year, yet we finished just outside this year and look optimistically towards 2009.
You look at that list that Western Tiger put up - 32 players 24yo or younger, of which 21 are 21yo or younger.
As we know, it's only the boys drafted in 2003/04, aged 21-22yo that are now showing there talents in senior footy. At the Dees, we see devoping boys of that age playing good regular footy and those even younger too.
That section from 2003 on is what Craig had real control over and it looks very good.

For the short time that Craig has been at Richmond, he has a very good understanding of where the flaws on the Richmond list are. He has an excellent understanding of juniors around Australia. And he knows what types of players the Tigers need. In the end Craig will be judged on how he performs according to KPIs, which is fair enough.

As for the Tigers' future list management. I take heart from the comments of Neil Balme at Geelong who has said that all Tiger fans should be patient. If the Tigers continue to grow their list by merely recruiting the best juniors year after year then success will come. The worst thing we can do is to panic and start compromising our junior development around recruiting "big name" but "body-worn" players from other AFL clubs. Remember, it's by recruiting mature players from other clubs onto long term contracts that does the most damage to your player payments schedule.

I hope this helps.

good post ghost.we agree on a fair few things. we need to engrave in stone permanrntly the basic ideals behind long term youth policys. the last thing our club needs to do at the moment is chase big name body worn players. we have begun a process we are still in the early stages of that process we have to stick with what has got us to where we are now. lets not do what we have done in the past lose patience and change tack thats a recipe for disaster and i mean long term disaster.

 

[pahoffm]

Thanks Claw,

Guess we're a mutual admiration society of sorts.

 

[the claw]

Thanks Claw,

Guess we're a mutual admiration society of sorts.

on cc when we announced him for the job i originally had grave concerns re his recruiting i still do. but what has convinced me to give him a decent go is primarily his list structures. we have a bloke called jackson who it seems to know a footballer when he sees one. i think in tandem these two will make a good team. still you have to worry.

 

[the claw]

Many with disappointments, only one with exultation.

For the Tiges, we go into 2009 optimistically, but we do have some thin spots on our list that can give us some trouble.

Rucks - after Simmonds, now 30yo, we have Pattison 22, Cartledge 22, Graham 21 & Putt 19. Our reticence in drafting rucks back in 2002/2003 has caused us this problem. If Simmo goes down we are in big trouble. He did in 2007, and as he gets past 30yo, the odds of him having further injuries increase.

Midfield - Foley has topped 2007 off with a very good 2008, but there were clear signs late in the season that his body was showing the strain. He desperately needs others to share the load. King was tried but lacks for enough pace & skill and at 24yo won't get any better. Tambling improved and does become an option but at 21yo, as a rover, his improvement will now tend to plateau. Cotchin still has 3 more years of rapid development before he reaches his best, which is a great sign. Edwards is improving but does not have an innate talent as a rover and is having difficulty, at this stage, of showing any learning of roving skills. He was a flanker as a junior and is proving to be a senior flanker - hope I'm wrong.
Tuck at 27yo will hopefully have the consistency & longevity of his father. Coughlan, hope he improves but over 25yo now with missing 3 years of consistent footy is still against the odds, (Josh Francou serves as a recent example).

These are the main areas.

Up forward, Schulz, Hughes, Reiwoldt, Gourdis will all show continued development until 24yo. Morton has been very good but as a 21yo medium the odds are that he won't get that much better.
In defence, Thursfield, McGuane & Rance will all continue to improve until 24yo. Moore has improved enormously but there is now marginal room for improvement given his age.
With both defence and up forward, we just need some draft luck over the coming years by being able to balance off with some 196/7cm types.
As far as mediums are concerned, we have far more than we need and the opportunity for us is to balance some mediums off for these other types that we are short for. Conversely, we need to be aware that mediums Bowden & Johnson are at the end of their careers and we will lose these two shortly.

So for 2009, we look optimistically but we remain aware that there are some list imbalances that could affect us badly if injuries or loss of form occur to some players in vital areas.

whilst i have you. i agree with most of the above.just a question on the kpps.
allowing we keep them all until 24 how many more do you think we need to get into our system over the next few yrs. i ask this with a view to the fact probably close to 40% wont make it. hughes schulz pattison cartledge mcguane polak all look iffy surely we have to cover for the eventuality of these players not making it. add the fact richo and simmonds are both 30+ a poor outcome in this area has our rucks kpp stocks in dire straights. again how many talls should we put thru our system in the next few yrs.

 

[pahoffm]

KKPs - Ok!

In the model I run, I allow for:

25-27yo: 2 x 190-194cm kpps + 1 x 195-199 -> currently we have none of these, but we do have Richardson 33yo & Simmonds 29yo. That's two spots taken, one open.

22-24yo: 2 x 190-194cm kpps + 2 x 195-199 -> currently we have Polak, Schulz & Sylvester in the first group, but Sylvester should go. We'll know in a year if Polak will make it, maybe sooner. Pattison & Cartledge are in the second group. Each has 2 more years on the outside.

18-21yo: 4 x 190-194cm kpps + 2 x 195-199 -> currently we have Thursfield, McGuane, Hughes, Reiwoldt, Rance & Gourdis in the first group.(Two too many). We have none in the second group.

Note also that there are 3 spots I've put away for 200+ cm.
25-27yo: -> none
22-24yo: -> none
18-21yo: -> Graham & Putt

So there are some imbalances, but overall we have 16 spots for those over 190cm, of which we currently use 15, with one possibly two of the 15 dropping off this year.

That leaves about 2 or 3 spots open for this recruiting period.

The following year, another two spots would open up etc. And so on.

Richardson & Simmonds are exceptions, but we can wear these on the basis that we lack for 25-27yo talls, but the crunch will come sometime.

So that's how it works.

You're very welcome to meet with me sometime you're in Melbourne & we can go through it in more depth.

For that fact, anyone can, just give me a call.

Cheers!

 

[Tigers of Old]

on cc when we announced him for the job i originally had grave concerns re his recruiting i still do. but what has convinced me to give him a decent go is primarily his list structures. we have a bloke called jackson who it seems to know a footballer when he sees one. i think in tandem these two will make a good team. still you have to worry.

Undermining him already clawsy? Or having a bob each way?


Let's just see how he goes hey.

 

[pahoffm]

Hi ToO,

You know that you & I get on well.

Claw isn't undermining Craig. He's merely expressing a realism that trust is earned.

That's fine. Some think that way. (My wife is a realist.)

Personally, I choose to bestow trust initially, then if it's lost, well, it rarely gets returned.

Just a personality thing. We're all different & Claw has a right to be realistic.

 

[momentai]

22-24yo: 2 x 190-194cm kpps + 2 x 195-199 -> currently we have Polak, Schulz & Sylvester in the first group, but Sylvester should go. We'll know in a year if Polak will make it, maybe sooner. Pattison & Cartledge are in the second group. Each has 2 more years on the outside.
Cheers!

Phanto,
I suspect the neurosurgeon has already advised Polly of the risks he faces if he goes on. If so we shouldn't even be flirting with the idea that he may come back. Every bang you take to the head increases the chance of permanent damage.

All indications suggest that his time has come and what should be an easy, though painful, decision will be made in the next few days.

 

[pahoffm]

Phanto,
I suspect the neurosurgeon has already advised Polly of the risks he faces if he goes on. If so we shouldn't even be flirting with the idea that he may come back. Every bang you take to the head increases the chance of permanent damage.

All indications suggest that his time has come and what should be an easy, though painful, decision will be made in the next few days.

Well, if that's so, it opens that extra spot.
16 - 15 = 1 + Sylvester's spot + Polak's spot makes the 3 places that I wanted for ultra talls.

 

[Leysy Days]

The problem leysy's got with your charts phantom is that some guys play a lot taller than others.

Jason Saddington for example is an ultra tall, as is Kepler Bradley, as is Troy Chaplin, as is Justin Westhoff. None if them ever were or will ever be key position players.

There are also many, (especially today) who play key position at 190cm & lower. Surely your chart has to be flexible enough to show this.

The perfect example is Joel Bowden Vs Graham Polak. Joel's getting on a bit now but there's no doubt in leysy's mind that if those two were one-out Joel would outmark Polly more often than not despite being 6cm's shorter. Yet Joel would never show up as a key position player when he was one of the better one's in the land.

Reckon there's gotta be some flexibilty with how you present it.

 

[pahoffm]

The problem leysy's got with your charts phantom is that some guys play a lot taller than others.

Jason Saddington for example is an ultra tall, as is Kepler Bradley, as is Troy Chaplin, as is Justin Westhoff. None if them ever were or will ever be key position players.

There are also many, (especially today) who play key position at 190cm & lower. Surely your chart has to be flexible enough to show this.

The perfect example is Joel Bowden Vs Graham Polak. Joel's getting on a bit now but there's no doubt in leysy's mind that if those two were one-out Joel would outmark Polly more often than not despite being 6cm's shorter. Yet Joel would never show up as a key position player when he was one of the better one's in the land.

Reckon there's gotta be some flexibilty with how you present it.

Understand.

What you state are exceptions.
As said, we take exceptions into view & calculation.

 

[the claw]

KKPs - Ok!

In the model I run, I allow for:

25-27yo: 2 x 190-194cm kpps + 1 x 195-199 -> currently we have none of these, but we do have Richardson 33yo & Simmonds 29yo. That's two spots taken, one open.

22-24yo: 2 x 190-194cm kpps + 2 x 195-199 -> currently we have Polak, Schulz & Sylvester in the first group, but Sylvester should go. We'll know in a year if Polak will make it, maybe sooner. Pattison & Cartledge are in the second group. Each has 2 more years on the outside.

18-21yo: 4 x 190-194cm kpps + 2 x 195-199 -> currently we have Thursfield, McGuane, Hughes, Reiwoldt, Rance & Gourdis in the first group.(Two too many). We have none in the second group.

Note also that there are 3 spots I've put away for 200+ cm.
25-27yo: -> none
22-24yo: -> none
18-21yo: -> Graham & Putt

So there are some imbalances, but overall we have 16 spots for those over 190cm, of which we currently use 15, with one possibly two of the 15 dropping off this year.

That leaves about 2 or 3 spots open for this recruiting period.

The following year, another two spots would open up etc. And so on.

Richardson & Simmonds are exceptions, but we can wear these on the basis that we lack for 25-27yo talls, but the crunch will come sometime.

So that's how it works.

You're very welcome to meet with me sometime you're in Melbourne & we can go through it in more depth.

For that fact, anyone can, just give me a call.

Cheers!

i agree 16 is an ideal number of talls for depth development and continuity.. those 16 talls you need to be reasonably happy they will play some decent footy for you. where we diverge is i think to get 16 half decent talls you will have to probably go thru 22 24 over a period of time. currently we have 15 talls but as i said theres a likely hood that 7 to 10 of these talls are not long term. personally i would like 7 talls added to the current list over the next 2 yrs. if players drop out like polak or pattison delisted for example we need to go for more.as far as im concerned ruckmen kpps and onballers are the only types we should be drafting. the way we go about drafting talls to the list is akin to putting all your eggs in one basket and hoping those eggs eggs dont get cracked or go bad.

 

[pahoffm]

i agree 16 is an ideal number of talls for depth development and continuity.. those 16 talls you need to be reasonably happy they will play some decent footy for you. where we diverge is i think to get 16 half decent talls you will have to probably go thru 22 24 over a period of time. currently we have 15 talls but as i said theres a likely hood that 7 to 10 of these talls are not long term. personally i would like 7 talls added to the current list over the next 2 yrs. if players drop out like polak or pattison delisted for example we need to go for more.as far as im concerned ruckmen kpps and onballers are the only types we should be drafting. the way we go about drafting talls to the list is akin to putting all your eggs in one basket and hoping those eggs eggs dont get cracked or go bad.

Yes, I agree & I don't think we differ.

If the model is populated the way I presented, it actually gives more flexibility to cast off a developing player earlier, if they become a "no hope" case early.
Why?
Because you are less dependent on any one individual player.

Works a whole lot better than the current structure of talls.
But then again, anything would.

 

[NZtiger]

It's settled.
The Phantom/Claw combination for the next Recruitment and list management team!

In all seriousness though your examples seem by far to be more logical than the lucky-dip policy employed to create the club's current structure. Pace is not everything! Ok, we have secured some good young players in recent years, but I think that it is much more of a reflection of our position in the league over recent times. With some help in the KPP department we should be looking at a team to really contend for a premiership in a few years.

Let's hope Craig's thinking is much more along those lines, or that he will continue to take consultation on the matter.

Interesting to hear that you believe Melbourne appear to be heading in the right direction with their list Phantom. One would assume that you aren't dissatisfied with CC's appointment..?