Ideal list management?

[The_General]

I've been reading a couple of threads, and people are commenting about the lack of foresight shown by the recruiting teams, in that we've probably got a heavily biased ratio of running players to key position.

The question I'll pose to you all is, how many is enough key position players? I'd say you'd want 2 of each key position capable of playing firsts, with maybe a third as a young player who's learning the craft in the 2's. Then I reckon you should also have maybe 2 more Tall utilities, who can play either forward or back. Is that overkill?

So, we'd have:

FF: Richo, Hughes
CHF: Schulz, Riewoldt
CHB: Polak, Hall, J.O-N
FB: Gaspar, Thursfield
Ruck: Simmonds, Knobel, Pattison, Graham (r)
Utilities: ????, ????

There's the bowden's who you could put in as a utility, but I don't think they should be played as a KPP. They are much better as flankers, where they don't have to be as accountable.
McGuane is 1-2 inches short of being a genuine KPP, so I won't include him there (unless his height is wrong from the RFC webpage).
Likewise, Kingsley could play FF, but he isn't suited to the role.

12 of the spots on our list for 5 of the positions on the ground. That's (very) roughly 30% of the spots on the list for 30% spots on the ground.
Is this enough?

 

[Dean3]

It depends on how one sees the game's evolution. If you look at the last two premiership sides, you could hardly say that they have had all-star spines":

Barry, LRT, Hall, O'Loughlin.

Glass, ??, Hansen, Lynch.

You would only call Barry Hall a power forward, I guess Lynch too, but not in the same class. The KPP have been largely role-players and structure-givers (to coin a phrase), surrounded by gut-wrenching power-running midfields. Wallace obviously sees the game going further this way.

 

[Disco08]

Throw Bolton in as Sydney's 'second' FB/CHB. And Staker was West Coast's CHF most of last year except for missing the Grand Final, making Hansen the usual CHB. Jaymie Graham played all but the GF last year too. Both teams also have a group of at least 4 or 5 younger players coming up to fill these spots at any one time.

 

[Harro12]

The thing with Wce is that they have Adam Hunter. How handy would his type be!

 

[Dean3]

The thing with Wce is that they have Adam Hunter. How handy would his type be!

Would be great if Schulz developed along Hunter lines. Not sure if Schulzy is 'smart' enough though. Time will tell.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Glass, ??, Hansen, Lynch.

Yep for all some darksiders carry on that would have to be one of the worst premiership spines in history.
Fortunately for them their midfield would be up there with the best.

The thing with Wce is that they have Adam Hunter. How handy would his type be!

'
Hunter is WC's X factor. He fills the gaps forward or back as required.
Would be brilliant to see Polak and Schulz be able to do the same for us over the next decade.

 

[Wildride]

McGuane is 1-2 inches short of being a genuine KPP, so I won't include him there (unless his height is wrong from the RFC webpage).

Isn't McGuane listed at 191cm, and Thursfield at 190cm?

 

[checkside]

McGuane is 1-2 inches short of being a genuine KPP, so I won't include him there (unless his height is wrong from the RFC webpage).

Isn't McGuane listed at 191cm, and Thursfield at 190cm?

About that yes. 1cm smaller than Darren Glass and Ben Rutten

 

[Dean3]

About that yes. 1cm smaller than Darren Glass and Ben Rutten

But that 1cm would weigh about 15kgs. ;D

 

[pahoffm]

Whilst previewing both the Westcoast & Sydney lists, I made the observation that both clubs had players 190cm or more of around 40%. Both clubs are sitting at the top.

The Tiges have around 30%, and we seem to lack depth in this area. Especially in the 22-26yo group.

The Blues have 54%, reduced from 60% in 2006. This would appear to create a lack of depth in their runners.

I believe, over the next 3 years, we should be working to get the 190cm+ portion up to 40%.

 

[checkside]

About that yes. 1cm smaller than Darren Glass and Ben Rutten

But that 1cm would weigh about 15kgs. ;D

And have a extra 4 years development.

 

[pokey]

I was actually thinking today that a Adam Hunter type would be invaluable for us. He can play forward or back and has the right amount of aggro to put the wind up opponents. Glen Archer also had that ability in days gone by. Polak is probably our best chance of filling that role. I'm not sure that Schulz is up to holding down a spot down back.

As for JON playing CHB, I can't see that happening, but McGuane could if he continues his physical development.

 

[Braddles]

Whilst previewing both the Westcoast & Sydney lists, I made the observation that both clubs had players 190cm or more of around 40%. Both clubs are sitting at the top.

The Tiges have around 30%, and we seem to lack depth in this area. Especially in the 22-26yo group.

The Blues have 54%, reduced from 60% in 2006. This would appear to create a lack of depth in their runners.

I believe, over the next 3 years, we should be working to get the 190cm+ portion up to 40%.

This age group is without doubt our greatest problem. I've seen it written that TW uses this as an excuse, but when you compare the quality and quantity of our players in this age group compared to that of Sydney and WCE, it's obvious that a serious problem exists.

Rich: 22-26yo, 11 players (28% of the list)
Syd: 22-26yo, 14 players (34%)
WCE: 22-26 yo, 18 players (47%)

Judging purely on percentages, we're not that far behind Sydney, but a long way behind WCE. Unfortunately the players we have in this group are: P. Bowden, Coughlan, Hall, Hyde, Knobel, Moore, Newman, Pettifer, Polak, and Tuck. A few of these I'm happy with, but there are some average plodders amongst this group.

Compare that to WCE who have in this group: Armstrong, Cox, Embley, Glass, Graham, Hansen, Hunter, B.Jones, Judd, Kerr, Lynch, Nicoski, Sampi, Seaby, Selwood, Staker and Stenglein (depressing, isn't it?)

Sydney rely more on their over 26 group, and will probably struggle in another few years, but the Eagles' depth in this group shows how important it is. If managed properly, there's no reason why they can't be in the top few for the next 5 or so years.

Our 21 and under group is by far the biggest at our club, comprising 53% of the list. It is little wonder, then, that we struggled against the better teams last year, and will probably do so again. In another couple of years, though, half of these guys will have entered the 22-26yo group, and the likelihood is that our stocks will rise along with this change.

So when TW calls for patience and sites this group, it's not used as an excuse, it's an inescapable fact that was caused by the previous regime. This is one thing that can be taken on face value. It's not spin doctoring, it's just the way it is. I know I've used the two best clubs of the last two years for purposes of comparison, but obviously that's what we must aspire to, so the comparison is warranted.

 

[Disco08]

Great post Braddles.