Rotations will be more about who you name

[Dyer'ere]

Rotations on the park are killing the game. Or enhancing it depending on your POV.

Clubs are focussing on depth of experience right now for two reasons. The first is about culture - another issue.

The second is about rotations in the named squad.

Shane Mumford was injured before he went into the 2012 GF. And Jolly spent the PF pushing him in the back. (I guess it was a back injury.) The coach was stuck. He had to go with Mumford, even though the ruck couldn't walk.

Longmire rested him for much of 2012 to get him right for the finals. The finals worked out but management of Mumford did not. He was a liability in the GF. Nobody knows the science. Longmire did well over all.

Our own E-vahn could not walk by round 18(?). Experience tells us that the compulsory rests are not enough for him. So we must plan to rest him on the park in 2013 (moreso due to ageing) and off it.

One of the things we will have to factor is the demands of the role. Anybody who's played footy knows it's less physically demanding to play back. (How many games, in the last five years has Jimmy Bartel played on a HBF?)

So we have to give players like Deledio, Chimpa, Marto et al a run on the HBF. Deledio is hardy. He can play all games if we nurse him. But Chimpa and Marto have to rest.

Andy Kellaway got a hamstring strain prior to round 22 of 2001. He subsequently got 22 touches, kicked two goals and got two Brownlow votes IIRC. (I might have made all that up.) This is not called Heart; it is Hardiness. And it's a measure of a player. (Dustin Fletcher anyone?) The virtue of being hardy will be measured in the future. It matters for off-field rotations.

When you look at our starting line-up for 2013 and you can't find a place for A. Edwards or O. Stevenson; B. Ellis or J. Batchelor, King or Nahas, T. Elton or D. Astbury, you're right. We're going to roll them all through over the course of a season. Sometimes they'll be injured. Other times they'll fail. And sometimes they'll just be part of our off-field rotation policy.

For those of you who don't remember, Royce Hart spent a lot of time rotated off the field. It's all been done before, just not to the extent that's coming.

Newman will be rested IMO, and Jackson and Tuck are budgeted to play 20 and nineteen games respectively. I think Aaron Edwards will play eighteen games if he gives on the park. He is a massive improvement on Brad Miller and he takes heat off Jack.

Our minimum goal is not just to play finals in 2013 - it's to win at least one. To that extent we'll be "Locked and loaded" and we'll be "Cherry ripe". There is no science of off-field rotations as yet. All the clubs are on it. Let's see whose hypothesis is smartest.

We have two potentially champion players who are not hardy. They are Trent Cotchin and Jack Riewoldt, the latter in danger. They should be budgeted to play at most nineteen games in 2013 and fewer in 2014, say, seventeen and sixteen.

But for Hodge and Rioli, Hawthorn got resting right in 2012. They will improve in this area. We have to pass them.

 

[pervian]

That's a great post thanks for the info . Now I understand the draft a whole lot better

 

[Dyer'ere]

That's a great post thanks for the info . Now I understand the draft a whole lot better

Thank you, pervian, but I'm usually wrong, dyood. ;D

 

[Col.E.Kurtz]

Sound analysis.

Another bit of thinking that I hope was key to the club analysis is that now that free agency has ended the reign of virtual slavery in the AFL. Mediocre players can change clubs at will so clubs can find people to fill rosters needs with greater ease.

Clubs now no longer have to hold onto highly speculative rookie picks in the hope that in two years time they get 10 decent games out of them. Those list spots can be used on journeyman players who can play 10 decent games this year cheaply and can be moved on easily when no longer needed.

This is the brave new world of AFL, its familiar to those who follow sports like the NFL but the culture in our game is still updating.

 

[Tiger68]

Yep agree, I think for once we may be leading the way with our mature rookie approach. Hopefully you are right and there is some form of known rotation scheme. I think this will be really important with more depth on the list, keeping players motivated at Coburg will be a challenge that the club needs to manage.

McGuane is another I hope is part of some forward rotation scheme. I have done a complete about face with my rating of him, I think he really offers something up forward. He is a tough matchup with his pace, high marking ability and aggression at the content. For me the likes of A Edwards need to force him out in the PRE season, his end of season form was very good.

 

[tigertigertigertiger]

That's a great post thanks for the info . Now I understand the draft a whole lot better

x2,very insightful;

 

[spook]

Great stuff Big Jack. It's what Tottie and I were getting at in the rookie thread: to win a flag you need 30-35 players capable of holding their own on an AFL field. We see it with leading Euro soccer clubs: they rest players throughout the season and replace them not with juniors but other seasoned pros. Our re-treads aren't superstars (they're hard to find in the rookie draft) but they have shown to be competent performers at the level. So when some say 'you don't draft for depth', I agree when it comes to the national draft, but the paradigm looks to be changing for the rookie draft. The club needs to balance developing players with those that can step right in. It's responsible player and list management - and cheap too!

 

[TigerMasochist]

Been a couple of coaches and football managers muttering and tinkering about with this aspect of footy over the last couple of seasons. So far it's been the more successfull sides that have had the luxury of trialling this almost new innovation. Funny how resting a couple of topline players was recently frowned upon as lacking respect for your opponent.

Poor old K.B. will have to start looking for more ways to reshape the rules of the game. He still wants clubs to field the same 18 players on the field all game every game with the 2 emergencies only permitted to replace players officially killed or crippled during the match.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Great reasoned post. I think Cotch is a little hardier than you give him credit for, but overall it makes a lot of sense and displays that the club is for once moving in the right direction and thinking about things a lot better than I can remember for a long time.

 

[pahoffm]

Excellent thread.

And, as I've said over the years, the fundamental basis on which the AFL conducts its drafts is flawed, especially based from the argument above.

1. Junior players, those taken in the ND, should go immediately onto rookie lists, because most of these will NOT be playing AFL footy in their first year.

2. Those juniors, like the Deledios, Cotchins, etc, that will play AFL footy in their first year, can be immediately upgraded onto senior lists.

3. This would mean that senior list positions would be available to senior-ready players, rather than a handful from no. 30 to no.35 being occupied by junior players NOT AFL-ready.

4. Any junior players elevated to senior lists would create space for additional juniors to be selected in a secondary draft.

In short, the AFL has its drafting strategy "arse about tit", with juniors being placed on senior lists and seniors being placed on rookie lists.

And, as posted by Dyer'ere & Spook, the success of clubs can often be determined by the AFL-readiness of its nos. 30-35, and its ability to perform rotations.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Can we get you on the Rules Committee, Phantom? You make more sense than most of them.

 

[pahoffm]

Can we get you on the Rules Committee, Phantom? You make more sense than most of them.

Look, I put this initially forward on PRE and to the RFC about five years ago, and was roundly howled down by all for the idea.

A few commented that what I was proposing would blow out clubs' salary payments.

I disagreed on the current system then, I still disagree.

Maybe a few more can now see my argument. It certainly won't affect salary payments.

It will more likely mean that clubs WONT be paying "over the odds" for 18-20yos that are still 2-3 years away from playing regularly in the AFL.

 

[TOT70]

Excellent thread.

And, as I've said over the years, the fundamental basis on which the AFL conducts its drafts is flawed, especially based from the argument above.

1. Junior players, those taken in the ND, should go immediately onto rookie lists, because most of these will NOT be playing AFL footy in their first year.

2. Those juniors, like the Deledios, Cotchins, etc, that will play AFL footy in their first year, can be immediately upgraded onto senior lists.

3. This would mean that senior list positions would be available to senior-ready players, rather than a handful from no. 30 to no.35 being occupied by junior players NOT AFL-ready.

4. Any junior players elevated to senior lists would create space for additional juniors to be selected in a secondary draft.

In short, the AFL has its drafting strategy "arse about tit", with juniors being placed on senior lists and seniors being placed on rookie lists.

And, as posted by Dyer'ere & Spook, the success of clubs can often be determined by the AFL-readiness of its nos. 30-35, and its ability to perform rotations.

Yeah, we have had this discussion before.

The National Draft should be the rookie draft and only open to players under 21. Clubs should have the ability to place as many as they want on this rookie list, within the constraint of an overall list size of 44 or 45 or 50 or whatever. They should then be allowed to upgrade as many as they want whenever they want to during the season.

As an example, a club that is tilting for a flag might use the ND to pick up 3 rookies at the ND and one which is rebuilding might choose pick up 7 or 8. They might even want to retain a couple on the Rookie list from the previous year.

The rest of the list can now be filled using Free agency anyway. RIchmond chose to specifically place Lonergan, Petterd and Stephenson on the rookie list for esoteric "strategic" reasons. If this distinction didn't exist, they could have just taken them as Delisted Free Agents during the relevant period and had more certainty around training etc.

 

[pahoffm]

Yeah, we have had this discussion before.

The National Draft should be the rookie draft and only open to players under 21. Clubs should have the ability to place as many as they want on this rookie list, within the constraint of an overall list size of 44 or 45 or 50 or whatever. They should then be allowed to upgrade as many as they want whenever they want to during the season.

As an example, a club that is tilting for a flag might use the ND to pick up 3 rookies at the ND and one which is rebuilding might choose pick up 7 or 8. They might even want to retain a couple on the Rookie list from the previous year.

The rest of the list can now be filled using Free agency anyway. RIchmond chose to specifically place Lonergan, Petterd and Stephenson on the rookie list for esoteric "strategic" reasons. If this distinction didn't exist, they could have just taken them as Delisted Free Agents during the relevant period and had more certainty around training etc.

Exactly!

And if Stephenson, Lonergan & Pettard had legitimately and immediately gone onto the senior list, it would stop the massive charade that's going on now.

And it would save the RFC money.

1. McIntosh, McBean & McDonough are years away from playing AFL, yet are on the senior list, receiving BIG money for 18yos.
(What's the temptation of creating a drug habit, if you suddenly & prematurely have large disposable income?)

2. How much do Stephenson, Lonergan & Pettard's payments increase as soon as they are upgraded to senior players due to long term injury list changes?

Another reason why the whole system stinks.

 

[pahoffm]

Sorry Dyer'ere,

I've probably sent your thread into a complete tangent from where you intended.

 

[Leysy Days]

Its OK. Dyer-ere loves tangents. ;D

 

[TOT70]

Exactly!

And if Stephenson, Lonergan & Pettard had legitimately and immediately gone onto the senior list, it would stop the massive charade that's going on now.

And it would save the RFC money.

1. McIntosh, McBean & McDonough are years away from playing AFL, yet are on the senior list, receiving BIG money for 18yos.
(What's the temptation of creating a drug habit, if you suddenly & prematurely have large disposable income?)

2. How much do Stephenson, Lonergan & Pettard's payments increase as soon as they are upgraded to senior players due to long term injury list changes?

Another reason why the whole system stinks.

I don't know about this being a stinky charade. I don't see a conspiracy here, just a number of ill-conceived and clunky rules slapped together over time by morons and their less useful bosses. Just like in the rest of society!

 

[pahoffm]

Didn't mean to infer that it was a "stinky" charade.

I meant it in its literal sense, "an absurd pretence".

As you say, built up from a number of ill-conceived decisions slapped together.

A bit like cheap make-up, but overly expensive in its outcomes.

 

[tigersnake]

Yeah, we have had this discussion before.

The National Draft should be the rookie draft and only open to players under 21. Clubs should have the ability to place as many as they want on this rookie list, within the constraint of an overall list size of 44 or 45 or 50 or whatever. They should then be allowed to upgrade as many as they want whenever they want to during the season.

As an example, a club that is tilting for a flag might use the ND to pick up 3 rookies at the ND and one which is rebuilding might choose pick up 7 or 8. They might even want to retain a couple on the Rookie list from the previous year.

The rest of the list can now be filled using Free agency anyway. RIchmond chose to specifically place Lonergan, Petterd and Stephenson on the rookie list for esoteric "strategic" reasons. If this distinction didn't exist, they could have just taken them as Delisted Free Agents during the relevant period and had more certainty around training etc.

wrong thread, but how is this any different to how things work now?

Re thread, agree, rotating in and out of the side becoming more orthodox

 

[TOT70]

Didn't mean to infer that it was a "stinky" charade.

I meant it in its literal sense, "an absurd pretence".

As you say, built up from a number of ill-conceived decisions slapped together.

A bit like cheap make-up, but overly expensive in its outcomes.

Absolutely, only the expensive stuff will do for me.

BTW, on your point about the three rookies and their contracts going up, I reckon they are already contracted and it won't matter whether they are upgraded or not, they will receive the same money. A couple of years ago, the AFL changed the rookie rules to allow players to be placed on a rookie list but negotiate their own pay if they could. Their is a small benefit to a club if it leaves a couple of spots empty on their list and contracts a couple of rookies instead and that is that the basic rookie salary is outside the cap.

So, if Petterd is on $120K and they put his on the list, then $120K counts towards to cap. By putting him on the Rookie list, only the balance between his contract and a basic rookie salary ($35K-ish) counts. That is why clubs are falling over themselves to shift contracted players onto the Rookie List. That is why most clubs now have a number of more mature rookies. Ed Curnow, for example, enters his third year on Carlton's rookie list and basically plays every week, if available. He'll be contracted and earning a decent wage.