Are our kids just not as good as most other teams kids?

[saint66au]

Over the last 2 years we have introduced Geary, Eddy, McEvoy, Steven, Heyne, Stanley, Archer to the side at various stages. WIth the exception of Mac not one of them has done enough to demand a regular place (and even Mac was dropped for GF1)

Meanwhile tonight I saw Crameri, Bellchambers, Heppell et al tear us to shreds and all thru the call of other games I hear "oh hes gonna be a beauty" about other teams kids, but never ours

Playing the kids is one thing, but if those kids arent actually up to AFL standard..what happens?

This might sound harsh and kneejerk in the face of a bad game, but, in light of how other teams kids (or mature ages recruits come to that *cough* Curnow *cough* ) seem to adapt to AFL footy, do we need to be marking our kids harder?

I excuse Alastair Smith from this discussion. IMO the best debut game for us in a very long time, but I wonder if he'll have 27 touches in game 2 like Tom Liberatore had last week? Will he have averaged 25 touches after 5 games like Jarryd Blair?

[bobmurray]

Recruiting and player development at St Kilda have been ordinary for a very long time...it has to come home to roost at some point...That time is nigh....

There is no quick fix if your drafting teenagers either.....just ask Melbourne and Richmond

[Cro]

It depends what his role in the side is to whether he is expected to get that many touches.

We saw last year that Jack Steven can be a match winner, and there are signs that Stanley will cut it too. Other than that we've not given any one else a go really.

I don't think our gameplan has favoured kids to come in and do well. First rule has always been follow the structures, kids can't just come in and play footy, they've got all these other things on their mind.
I think we saw that players from other clubs have struggled in their first games when coming into out highly structured game plan too. Early last year Peake was clueless (sure he is hopeless, but at least he has the idea..)
Very hard when coming from juniors where you get the footy and move it towards goal and play on your man, to all the extras we have added to our gameplan.

[SainterK]

Steven and Stanley are a little behind, they didn't have the preseason to play into some form.

[dcstkfc]

Part of it is a strike rate issue. We just haven't tried that many, and not given them a long enough go, because toilers like Blake, McQualter, Eddy and Dempster have been deemed to be preferable.

People forget the Collingwood failures. In 2007, they used 38 players.

Sam Iles, Danny Stanley, Chris Egan, Shannon Cox, Ryan Cook, Daniel Nicholls are all gone. But Goldsack, Reid, Wellingham, Toovey and Nathan Brown made it. Seems like a numbers game to me.

Essendon used 40 players in 2008. We walloped them by 108 points in Rd 22, and their side featured John Williams and Rhys Magin. But it also had Heath Hocking, Tom Bellchambers, Cale Hooker, Sam Lonergan and Leroy Jetta, none of whom had played more than 22 AFL games. The tide can turn, but you have to try the kids.

[hayes66]

i dont know if the kids are good enough but thats because we havnt tried them to find out. and i dont think its fair to compare some players with others as in al smith with tom liberatore. Little Libba wouldve have been a round 1 pick if not for f/s and smith was something like 62, i know its a continued excuse about our draft selections but its a fair one. Smith struggles with kicking but his certainly not out of place so at pick 62 thats not a terrible result. Steven pick 30 odd i think he'll be a good player but dont compare to Heppell etc who was top 10. As you said Ben is 1 of the only to cement a spot and his our only top 10. He may not be dominating but for a big bloke his doin ok with a lot of improvement still to come. If you look at that draft Rioli is the only one we possibly could have taken who is dominating but although he got beaten tonight we would be in further trouble without Ben to ruck at all. Winmar and Stanley picks 30 odd to 40 i think will be ok again and possibly better if given time. The major decision thats hurt us, where we should have got a good young kid that we could say "his going to be a star" about was the lovett trade. Pick 16 for nothing. if we had of got a good young kid we could be looking at that draft saying pick 16 and winmar these two are looking alright ben and jack these two looking alright cripps ledger these two looking alright etc.

[meher baba]

We have been fixated on recycled players rather than kids. We have also made some questionable calls with some early draft picks. If you look at our 7 first round picks up to 2009: Clarke and Mini have been mediocre; Armo, McEvoy and Lynch all remain in the "jury's out" category; Lovett and Watts were wasted. Over the same period we've had a few later pick successes - Fisher, Gilbert and Gwilt - but really none since the 2005 draft. And we've done some trading and recycling: Schneider, Dempster, Ray, Gardiner, Dawson and Peake. And turned up a few rookies who try hard but (like most players who don't feature in the main draft) have serious technical flaws in their games: Eddy, Geary, Jones. And we were unlucky that Allen had to retire (although we really hadn't seen enough of him to know if he was any good).

And, in among all this, we failed to hang onto Ball, who went to the Pies for, at best, only a little more money than we'd offered him. And we'd re-signed Leigh Fisher and Brad Howard to long contracts only a matter of weeks before we'd worked out they weren't going to be part of our long-term plans (decisions that continue to mystify me).

It's a very poor recruiting/list management record yet, due to the high quality of our core list and the tactical acumen of our coach, it hasn't adversely affected us up to now.

But it had to make its mark eventually and I fear it is now starting to do so.

[dcstkfc]

We have been fixated on recycled players rather than kids. We have also made some questionable calls with some early draft picks. If you look at our 7 first round picks up to 2009: Clarke and Mini have been mediocre; Armo, McEvoy and Lynch all remain in the "jury's out" category; Lovett and Watts were wasted. Over the same period we've had a few later pick successes - Fisher, Gilbert and Gwilt - but really none since the 2005 draft. And we've done some trading and recycling: Schneider, Dempster, Ray, Gardiner, Dawson and Peake. And turned up a few rookies who try hard but (like most players who don't feature in the main draft) have serious technical flaws in their games: Eddy, Geary, Jones. And we were unlucky that Allen had to retire (although we really hadn't seen enough of him to know if he was any good).

And, in among all this, we failed to hang onto Ball, who went to the Pies for, at best, only a little more money than we'd offered him. And we'd re-signed Leigh Fisher and Brad Howard to long contracts only a matter of weeks before we'd worked out they weren't going to be part of our long-term plans (decisions that continue to mystify me).

It's a very poor recruiting/list management record yet, due to the high quality of our core list and the tactical acumen of our coach, it hasn't adversely affected us up to now.

But it had to make its mark eventually and I fear it is now starting to do so.

Outstanding analysis

[desertsaint]

We have been fixated on recycled players rather than kids. We have also made some questionable calls with some early draft picks. If you look at our 7 first round picks up to 2009: Clarke and Mini have been mediocre; Armo, McEvoy and Lynch all remain in the "jury's out" category; Lovett and Watts were wasted. Over the same period we've had a few later pick successes - Fisher, Gilbert and Gwilt - but really none since the 2005 draft. And we've done some trading and recycling: Schneider, Dempster, Ray, Gardiner, Dawson and Peake. And turned up a few rookies who try hard but (like most players who don't feature in the main draft) have serious technical flaws in their games: Eddy, Geary, Jones. And we were unlucky that Allen had to retire (although we really hadn't seen enough of him to know if he was any good).

And, in among all this, we failed to hang onto Ball, who went to the Pies for, at best, only a little more money than we'd offered him. And we'd re-signed Leigh Fisher and Brad Howard to long contracts only a matter of weeks before we'd worked out they weren't going to be part of our long-term plans (decisions that continue to mystify me).

It's a very poor recruiting/list management record yet, due to the high quality of our core list and the tactical acumen of our coach, it hasn't adversely affected us up to now.

But it had to make its mark eventually and I fear it is now starting to do so.

agree with this all, bar it hasn't adversely affected us up to now.

[hayes66]

We have been fixated on recycled players rather than kids. We have also made some questionable calls with some early draft picks. If you look at our 7 first round picks up to 2009: Clarke and Mini have been mediocre; Armo, McEvoy and Lynch all remain in the "jury's out" category; Lovett and Watts were wasted. Over the same period we've had a few later pick successes - Fisher, Gilbert and Gwilt - but really none since the 2005 draft. And we've done some trading and recycling: Schneider, Dempster, Ray, Gardiner, Dawson and Peake. And turned up a few rookies who try hard but (like most players who don't feature in the main draft) have serious technical flaws in their games: Eddy, Geary, Jones. And we were unlucky that Allen had to retire (although we really hadn't seen enough of him to know if he was any good).

And, in among all this, we failed to hang onto Ball, who went to the Pies for, at best, only a little more money than we'd offered him. And we'd re-signed Leigh Fisher and Brad Howard to long contracts only a matter of weeks before we'd worked out they weren't going to be part of our long-term plans (decisions that continue to mystify me).

It's a very poor recruiting/list management record yet, due to the high quality of our core list and the tactical acumen of our coach, it hasn't adversely affected us up to now.

But it had to make its mark eventually and I fear it is now starting to do so.

yes i think thats a fairer assessment, more of a list management point of view, losing ball for nothing etc overall, but i dont think its fair to say our kids arnt as good as those from others and comparing round 1 to middle road picks. i never liked the targeted recycled players system, whilst some have been handy ie gardiner shneider ray, overall i wouldve preferred kids. Im not sure who cops the blame there though does our recruiting cover trades/recycled players? i think its different between clubs. I reckon its fair to say schneider and dempster were ross's idea from sydney and the others may have been assisstant coaches ideas from those clubs etc. Im not sure recruitings to blame most recruiters would want kids i wouldve thought as that is who they watch all year. so to my original point, i think weve done ok with our kids for what weve had but we cant compare them to higher picks which we may have lost due to targeting recycled players

[Cro]

We have been fixated on recycled players rather than kids. We have also made some questionable calls with some early draft picks. If you look at our 7 first round picks up to 2009: Clarke and Mini have been mediocre; Armo, McEvoy and Lynch all remain in the "jury's out" category; Lovett and Watts were wasted. Over the same period we've had a few later pick successes - Fisher, Gilbert and Gwilt - but really none since the 2005 draft. And we've done some trading and recycling: Schneider, Dempster, Ray, Gardiner, Dawson and Peake. And turned up a few rookies who try hard but (like most players who don't feature in the main draft) have serious technical flaws in their games: Eddy, Geary, Jones. And we were unlucky that Allen had to retire (although we really hadn't seen enough of him to know if he was any good).

And, in among all this, we failed to hang onto Ball, who went to the Pies for, at best, only a little more money than we'd offered him. And we'd re-signed Leigh Fisher and Brad Howard to long contracts only a matter of weeks before we'd worked out they weren't going to be part of our long-term plans (decisions that continue to mystify me).

It's a very poor recruiting/list management record yet, due to the high quality of our core list and the tactical acumen of our coach, it hasn't adversely affected us up to now.

But it had to make its mark eventually and I fear it is now starting to do so.

yes i think thats a fairer assessment, more of a list management point of view, losing ball for nothing etc overall, but i dont think its fair to say our kids arnt as good as those from others and comparing round 1 to middle road picks. i never liked the targeted recycled players system, whilst some have been handy ie gardiner shneider ray, overall i wouldve preferred kids. Im not sure who cops the blame there though does our recruiting cover trades/recycled players? i think its different between clubs. I reckon its fair to say schneider and dempster were ross's idea from sydney and the others may have been assisstant coaches ideas from those clubs etc. Im not sure recruitings to blame most recruiters would want kids i wouldve thought as that is who they watch all year. so to my original point, i think weve done ok with our kids for what weve had but we cant compare them to higher picks which we may have lost due to targeting recycled players

Apart from Lovett we didn't give up any top picks for recycled players tho'?

[Bernard Shakey]

Steven and Stanley are a little behind, they didn't have the preseason to play into some form.

They had a preseason at Sandy. They are just not up to it at the moment.

Jack has OP problems and Rhys just does not know where to go to get the ball.

This years draftees show a lot of promise and Smith, Lynch and a couple of others will make their mark when given a chance.

[hayes66]

We have been fixated on recycled players rather than kids. We have also made some questionable calls with some early draft picks. If you look at our 7 first round picks up to 2009: Clarke and Mini have been mediocre; Armo, McEvoy and Lynch all remain in the "jury's out" category; Lovett and Watts were wasted. Over the same period we've had a few later pick successes - Fisher, Gilbert and Gwilt - but really none since the 2005 draft. And we've done some trading and recycling: Schneider, Dempster, Ray, Gardiner, Dawson and Peake. And turned up a few rookies who try hard but (like most players who don't feature in the main draft) have serious technical flaws in their games: Eddy, Geary, Jones. And we were unlucky that Allen had to retire (although we really hadn't seen enough of him to know if he was any good).

And, in among all this, we failed to hang onto Ball, who went to the Pies for, at best, only a little more money than we'd offered him. And we'd re-signed Leigh Fisher and Brad Howard to long contracts only a matter of weeks before we'd worked out they weren't going to be part of our long-term plans (decisions that continue to mystify me).

It's a very poor recruiting/list management record yet, due to the high quality of our core list and the tactical acumen of our coach, it hasn't adversely affected us up to now.

But it had to make its mark eventually and I fear it is now starting to do so.

yes i think thats a fairer assessment, more of a list management point of view, losing ball for nothing etc overall, but i dont think its fair to say our kids arnt as good as those from others and comparing round 1 to middle road picks. i never liked the targeted recycled players system, whilst some have been handy ie gardiner shneider ray, overall i wouldve preferred kids. Im not sure who cops the blame there though does our recruiting cover trades/recycled players? i think its different between clubs. I reckon its fair to say schneider and dempster were ross's idea from sydney and the others may have been assisstant coaches ideas from those clubs etc. Im not sure recruitings to blame most recruiters would want kids i wouldve thought as that is who they watch all year. so to my original point, i think weve done ok with our kids for what weve had but we cant compare them to higher picks which we may have lost due to targeting recycled players

Apart from Lovett we didn't give up any top picks for recycled players tho'?

no because we havnt had em but schneider 26 and ray 31 may have been alright considering got cripps and winmar with similar picks

[Furphy]

We haven't had an early draft pick for almost eight years, other clubs have been in the box seat whilst we have to rely on finding "smokeys" way down the list & foraging the footy scrap heap. That's the price you pay when you have a red-hot dip for years on end, when others get rewarded for non-effort.

[SainterK]

Steven and Stanley are a little behind, they didn't have the preseason to play into some form.

They had a preseason at Sandy. They are just not up to it at the moment.

Jack has OP problems and Rhys just does not know where to go to get the ball.

This years draftees show a lot of promise and Smith, Lynch and a couple of others will make their mark when given a chance.

Sorry, I meant preseason comp.

[saintspremiers]

We haven't had an early draft pick for almost eight years, other clubs have been in the box seat whilst we have to rely on finding "smokeys" way down the list & foraging the footy scrap heap. That's the price you pay when you have a red-hot dip for years on end, when others get rewarded for non-effort.

True to some degree but it's much deeper than that.

The Pies have made the finals for the past 5 ish years, so they've hardly had the cream of the crop either.

We can be thankful for bottoming out for three years in a row in 2000-02 and Carlton's cheating landing us BJ for our recent run.

[joffaboy]

We haven't had an early draft pick for almost eight years, other clubs have been in the box seat whilst we have to rely on finding "smokeys" way down the list & foraging the footy scrap heap. That's the price you pay when you have a red-hot dip for years on end, when others get rewarded for non-effort.

True to some degree but it's much deeper than that.

The Pies have made the finals for the past 5 ish years, so they've hardly had the cream of the crop either.

We can be thankful for bottoming out for three years in a row in 2000-02 and Carlton's cheating landing us BJ for our recent run.

Wrong. Collingwood played in 2 GF's and then went to the bottom to rebuild with kids.

Took 7 years to win the flag.

In 7 years Roo, Montagna, Dal Santo, Fisher and a bunch of others will be 35.

unless we have a hiatas in 2011, blood the kids and take some pain, we cant have a shot at another flag until our current core are gone.

We need to get new blood in so we can still have a shot in 2012 and 2013. After that time look at 2020.

[borderbarry]

Schneider and Steven, both smalls, were playing their first game of the season yesterday. Steven managed 2 goals, Schneids a behind. I know who Lyons will drop first.

[bigred]

We haven't had an early draft pick for almost eight years, other clubs have been in the box seat whilst we have to rely on finding "smokeys" way down the list & foraging the footy scrap heap. That's the price you pay when you have a red-hot dip for years on end, when others get rewarded for non-effort.

True to some degree but it's much deeper than that.

The Pies have made the finals for the past 5 ish years, so they've hardly had the cream of the crop either.

We can be thankful for bottoming out for three years in a row in 2000-02 and Carlton's cheating landing us BJ for our recent run.

Wrong. Collingwood played in 2 GF's and then went to the bottom to rebuild with kids.

Took 7 years to win the flag.

In 7 years Roo, Montagna, Dal Santo, Fisher and a bunch of others will be 35.

unless we have a hiatas in 2011, blood the kids and take some pain, we cant have a shot at another flag until our current core are gone.

We need to get new blood in so we can still have a shot in 2012 and 2013. After that time look at 2020.

Problem is that the next four drafts are heavily comprimised by the expansion teams being gifted so many earlies. A bottom four finish will only see you end up with pick 12 or so. Wrong time to have to bottom out and rebuild to be honest.

I thought we would get a couple of years through it. Top four in 2011 and at least top 8 in 2012.... Doesnt look like it now.

A lot of our kids are good, its just that we have not seen them. There is no doubt in my mind that other clubs have had much better drafts and list management than we have over the past decade. If anything, we would be close to the worst in the comp. Pretty impressive we made two GF's to be honest.

I fear that this will be another group of outstanding talent that will finish unfulfilled.

[saintspremiers]

We haven't had an early draft pick for almost eight years, other clubs have been in the box seat whilst we have to rely on finding "smokeys" way down the list & foraging the footy scrap heap. That's the price you pay when you have a red-hot dip for years on end, when others get rewarded for non-effort.

True to some degree but it's much deeper than that.

The Pies have made the finals for the past 5 ish years, so they've hardly had the cream of the crop either.

We can be thankful for bottoming out for three years in a row in 2000-02 and Carlton's cheating landing us BJ for our recent run.

Wrong. Collingwood played in 2 GF's and then went to the bottom to rebuild with kids.

Took 7 years to win the flag.

In 7 years Roo, Montagna, Dal Santo, Fisher and a bunch of others will be 35.

unless we have a hiatas in 2011, blood the kids and take some pain, we cant have a shot at another flag until our current core are gone.

We need to get new blood in so we can still have a shot in 2012 and 2013. After that time look at 2020.

This is Collingwood's ladder position and membership size since their 02/03 GF defeats:

2004 41,128 13th
2005 38,612 15th
2006 38,038 7th
2007 38,587 4th
2008 42,498 5th
2009 45,972 4th
2010 57,617 1st

So I am right that they've made the finals the past 5 years!

It's interesting to note that they finished bottom 4 in the 2 years straight AFTER the GF losses....which equates to 2011 and 2012 for us.

So maybe a very bad couple of years now is not such a bad thing, but you are on the money that it's 7 years until we can be a top side again (assuming we are finished now of course!).

The big question is can we do a Hawthorn of 2010, who lost their first 6 and then stormed home, but they are in a different player cycle to us.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Mentioned it in another thread, I think Brent Harvey's comments re: North's kids could easily be applied to ours.

You watch our kids, and you see flashes of skill. What you don't see is those players imposing themselves on contest after contest in an effort to get the result.

The only exceptions seem to be those who are starting from a way back - Mini only started doing it once rookied. Eddy and Geary worked their ways onto the list... but are limited in ball using ability. The best of yesterdays kid contingents was Alistair Smith - another one starting from behind and working his way onto the team (solid 1st game statline too).

When we start seeing our 1st rounders get really hungry, we'll get some results from our kids.

[gringo]

We have been playing the development into guys like Mc Evoy, Eddy and Geary. We have another lot coming through in Stanley,Steven, Simpkin and Smith. They all take time even Geary should be at the point where he makes it or is moved on. While you are up the top you don't have the luxury of playing kids game after game when they don't perform. Collingwood has their own VFL club and are able to manufacture a player in the mould they have set, not what the vfl coach needs to keep his job. The Pies have the luxury of employing a massive amount of development staff and as such they can probably bring kids on faster than average. When you look at the stats very few players will play more than 50 games. I heard calls to sack Tambling at the end of the season at least we didn't get him with our top 3 pick.

[hayes66]

harvey was talking about lachie hansen pick 3 played 50 games and sam wright pick 27 played 25 games, not stanley pick 47 played 7 games steven pick 42 played 9 games and smith pick 62 debutant

[Con Gorozidis]

IN ROUND five of the 2000 season, Jonathan Brown made his debut for the Brisbane Lions against Adelaide. He had zero kicks, zero marks, 0 handballs and 0 goals


the only way young players can get better is by playing games. lots of games. that usually involves short term pain. short term pain no saints fan wants to take. and even the coaching staff seem reluctant to embark on.
How quickly have we discarded or written off our youngsters?

mac, eddy, geary, cj, mini, gwility, ray, zac and gilbo have been given a fair crack in the last 5 years. of those id say 5 from 9 are going to be good players.

so thats what ur up against - to win a flag u need 22 good players - and on those numbers that means churning through about 40 players.

so we need to keep churning. but dont dismiss our kids until they are at least 22 yo and have played 20-40 games. after that i think u need to start chopping heads.

in gilbos case i think weve been way too quick to dismiss him as a forward. judge him after 20 games.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

IN ROUND five of the 2000 season, Jonathan Brown made his debut for the Brisbane Lions against Adelaide. He had zero kicks, zero marks, 0 handballs and 0 goals


the only way young players can get better is by playing games. lots of games. that usually involves short term pain. short term pain no saints fan wants to take. and even the coaching staff seem reluctant to embark on.
How quickly have we discarded or written off our youngsters?

mac, eddy, geary, cj, mini, gwility, ray, zac and gilbo have been given a fair crack in the last 5 years. of those id say 5 from 9 are going to be good players.

so thats what ur up against - to win a flag u need 22 good players - and on those numbers that means churning through about 40 players.

so we need to keep churning. but dont dismiss our kids until they are at least 22 yo and have played 20-40 games. after that i think u need to start chopping heads.

in gilbos case i think weve been way too quick to dismiss him as a forward. judge him after 20 games.

Just wonder, where do people get the ridiculous idea that playing games at AFL level makes players better? When Aaron Fiora was delisted, he shared the comments of Frawley "you're talented enough to get 150 games without work, 250 with". Sure enough, he was gone after being "gifted" 150.

Jonathan Brown had a shocker, came back, worked harder, and became a role player. By 2001-2-3, he'd evolved beyond that, again, not due to being gifted games, but by working on it. It's a celebrated case - Matthews was threatening to drop him for getting suspended too much, and he changed his behaviour. It's after that change of behaviour he makes the final transition from very good player to superstar.

He was certainly not gifted any games.

It has been demonstrated over a period of years now that if the kids work hard enough, they do get a game. Eddy, Geary, McQualter, Jones, Gilbert. Lyon doesn't have a rule against playing kids.

What he does have a rule against (and he has said this time and time again) is a rule against playing those who are not earning it.

Gifting games is how you develop players like those Richmond has been priviledged to witness over the last 10 years.