Go the tank

Con Gorozidis · Mon 27 Jun 2011 11:37am

This weekend really showed me the value of the tank. A few seasons back everyone was saying the Swans and the Crows were two teams that didnt believe in "bottoming out" and how good and consistent they were.
But seriously who would want to be either of those teams? They have no serious prospects of challenging for a flag in the next decade.

Then look at the Eagles - the true masters of the tank. They win a flag then bottom out completely to pick up talent. Then hey presto - they turn it back on again - Look at guys like Cox and Embley who had 2 down years. And now they have Shuey, Darling and the Nat man running around. I dont think there is any other way (apart from complete fluke) of getting decent new talent without really bottoming out. Thats why Id prefer we finished 13th or 14th this year rather than finished an "honest" 9th. Who know what opportunity will present itself with 2 early picks?

And the Saints need to give proper senior game time to 2nd year fringe guys like Lynch, Cahill, Winmar, Smith and Johnson before we make decisions about the 2012 playing list. Otherwise the whole thing becomes a lottery.

plugger66 · Mon 27 Jun 2011 11:53am

Just maybe WCE were no good last year due to injury and form and that is the reason they are going well this year because of less injuries and better form. I dont see why any club would tank when only 8 points out of the 8 when there are so many games left. A loss this week may change that thinking though.

Con Gorozidis · Mon 27 Jun 2011 12:00pm

plugger66 wrote:Just maybe WCE were no good last year due to injury and form and that is the reason they are going well this year because of less injuries and better form. I dont see why any club would tank when only 8 points out of the 8 when there are so many games left. A loss this week may change that thinking though.

I was just waiting to hear from the plug man! you always ask me "how is finishing 15th better than 8th?"

i have a question for you plug.

besides finishing low - how do you propose we get high quality talent in to the club?

I would also ask

How are we going to make a call on fringe players like Winmar, Smith, Lynch, Walsh, Cahill, Johnson who havent been afforded many opportunities?

Or do you propose we just de-list them all and hang on to more seasoned veterans again for 2012? Bottoming out isnt just about finishing low - its about experimenting with what you have.

White Winmar · Mon 27 Jun 2011 12:01pm

What about the cats? Haven't finished in the bottom 4 since the draft was introduced. In 24 years they've played in 7 Grand Finals, won 2 flags and never gone close to bottoming out. Everyone goes on about their good fortune with the Father/Son rule, but in reality it's only delivered them 2 champions in Scarlett and Gary Ablett, who is now gone. The other three, Blake, Hawkins and Nathan Ablett are either going or gone. Most pundits wrote them off for this year, claiming their aging list could no longer perform. 13-0 answers that one and perhaps more impressive is the number of young players who are showing good form and potential.

The cats have shown how important talent development is. Sure it is advantageous to have early picks, but it's what you do with players once they get into the system that is more important. Dare I say it, but the filth have also proven this point. I think they had 6 or 7 former rookie listed players in their premiership team. The rest of this season should show us where our list is at and what potential for development already exists.

Junction Oval · Mon 27 Jun 2011 12:04pm

It's far too soon to even consider discussing this topic. There are still a lot of Saints players with a lot of pride and young players wanting to win.

Let's not run down this road just yet.

Con Gorozidis · Mon 27 Jun 2011 12:08pm

White Winmar wrote:What about the cats? Haven't finished in the bottom 4 since the draft was introduced. In 24 years they've played in 7 Grand Finals, won 2 flags and never gone close to bottoming out. Everyone goes on about their good fortune with the Father/Son rule, but in reality it's only delivered them 2 champions in Scarlett and Gary Ablett, who is now gone. The other three, Blake, Hawkins and Nathan Ablett are either going or gone. Most pundits wrote them off for this year, claiming their aging list could no longer perform. 13-0 answers that one and perhaps more impressive is the number of young players who are showing good form and potential.

The cats have shown how important talent development is. Sure it is advantageous to have early picks, but it's what you do with players once they get into the system that is more important. Dare I say it, but the filth have also proven this point. I think they had 6 or 7 former rookie listed players in their premiership team. The rest of this season should show us where our list is at and what potential for development already exists.

Cats have been very impressive in the last decade. Thats for sure. And now they have pulled Vardy and Christensen out of the air as well. Must be something to learn from them.

jonesy · Post: # 1096023Post **jonesy** » Mon 27 Jun 2011 12:11pm

Problem with tanking this year is all the picks go to GWS,so no point in tanking for pick 8

Otherwise,it would be common sense

Hallalj#3 · Mon 27 Jun 2011 12:19pm

Don't think we need to embarrass ourselves over the next 2 yrs to rebuild.. But your right about bottoming out.. I think our recuriters have been dreadful in recognizing talent in the mid 20s to 50s draft pool.. I love how North Melbourne have rebuilt over the last couple of yrs they've always been pretty compettive they've just got bargins every where and that's a club with not much money to spend..

Either our recuriters have been terrible or our development coaches have Im guessing a mixture of both..

Con Gorozidis · Mon 27 Jun 2011 12:22pm

jonesy wrote:Problem with tanking this year is all the picks go to GWS,so no point in tanking for pick 8

Otherwise,it would be common sense

true. relatively crap year to tank.

plugger66 · Mon 27 Jun 2011 12:27pm

Con Gorozidis wrote:
plugger66 wrote:Just maybe WCE were no good last year due to injury and form and that is the reason they are going well this year because of less injuries and better form. I dont see why any club would tank when only 8 points out of the 8 when there are so many games left. A loss this week may change that thinking though.
I was just waiting to hear from the plug man! you always ask me "how is finishing 15th better than 8th?"

i have a question for you plug.

besides finishing low - how do you propose we get high quality talent in to the club?

I would also ask

How are we going to make a call on fringe players like Winmar, Smith, Lynch, Walsh, Cahill, Johnson who havent been afforded many opportunities?

Or do you propose we just de-list them all and hang on to more seasoned veterans again for 2012? Bottoming out isnt just about finishing low - its about experimenting with what you have.

We will naturally finish lower in a year or two so we dont have to manifacture finishing low this year. Also how has finishing bottom helped WCE this year? Yes they got Darling but every club if the AFL could have got him and if we finished around 7th or 8th this year we will get a pick that may allow us to get that type of player. After about picks 3 or 4 it seems a bit of a lotterey anyway as far as picking up stars.

Junction Oval · Mon 27 Jun 2011 12:42pm

For the rest of this year, we need to focus on what we have. It's an ideal opportunity to identify who is capable of moving forward.

We picked them because the recruiters thought that they had something to offer, so let's honour the selections.

As Plugger said, after picks 3 - 45 it can be a bit of a lottery.

SainterK · Post: # 1096053Post **SainterK** » Mon 27 Jun 2011 12:45pm

WCE are employing a zone, in a very disciplined manner, who says it's purely based on talent?

If you cast your mind back, Saints were playing pretty good footy without a massive amount of guns.

Zones require alot of other qualities, not just talent.

Con Gorozidis · Mon 27 Jun 2011 12:46pm

I agree drafting after the top 3 is a lottery and its a crap year to tank with GWS.

But I really think its going to be impossible to make calls on the list for 2012 with the information we currently have. We have 10 or so players who are 20 odd years of age. None of whom have been terrible and none of whom we know enough about to make calls on.

Lyon Tamer · Mon 27 Jun 2011 12:54pm

Hi there, 1st time poster...long time voyuer!!

I agree that we should be tanking.

The way I see it is that the luckiest team of the year is the premiers and the second luckiest team is the team that finishes last!! Therefore, if you can't win the premiership (which we can't) then the next aim is to get the best possible draft pick.

And even with the GWS getting the picks that they are, it still remains that the lower you finish, the better pick you get.

meher baba · Mon 27 Jun 2011 12:55pm

This seems to be partly a thread about WCE went yesterday.

IMO the main thing their performance demonstrated yesterday was how overrated Carlton is ATM. I picked the Eagles to win by plenty, and I was right.

The Blues have had one really first rate performance this year - their close loss to the Cats - and, otherwise, I think they've simply won the games they were expected to win.

The Blues are basically a bunch of try-hards, mixed in with a bunch of inconsistent players (Eddie Betts to the fore) plus Judd. Take away Judd and they would be down with us in the also-rans.

desertsaint · Mon 27 Jun 2011 1:04pm

surprisingly carlton only had one top eight victim before last weekend, now they have two, as melbourne climbed into the eight.
Pretenders.

Stillwaiting · Mon 27 Jun 2011 1:10pm

As much as I would like a high draft pick, I can not stand the thought of not trying to win every game. I saw enough beatings in the late 70`s. 80`s and a decent part of th 90`s.
I don`t want to loose anymore, and besides it is a crap year to finish low as far as draft picks are concerned

dragit · Post: # 1096074Post **dragit** » Mon 27 Jun 2011 1:24pm

White Winmar wrote:What about the cats? Haven't finished in the bottom 4 since the draft was introduced. In 24 years they've played in 7 Grand Finals, won 2 flags and never gone close to bottoming out. Everyone goes on about their good fortune with the Father/Son rule, but in reality it's only delivered them 2 champions in Scarlett and Gary Ablett, who is now gone. The other three, Blake, Hawkins and Nathan Ablett are either going or gone. Most pundits wrote them off for this year, claiming their aging list could no longer perform. 13-0 answers that one and perhaps more impressive is the number of young players who are showing good form and potential.

The cats have shown how important talent development is. Sure it is advantageous to have early picks, but it's what you do with players once they get into the system that is more important. Dare I say it, but the filth have also proven this point. I think they had 6 or 7 former rookie listed players in their premiership team. The rest of this season should show us where our list is at and what potential for development already exists.

This is where most people under-estimate the extent that Geelong have benefited from the father-son rule - one of my pet peevesâ€¦
It's not the players they received, it's the position in the draft which they used to secure themâ€¦
1997 - Scarlett - pick 45 - not sure how highly he was rated
2001 - Gary Ablett - pick 40 - so before selecting him they were able to draft - Bartel, Kelly & Johnson (& gardiner)
2003 - Mark Blake - perhaps taken around the right mark, but who knows if they would have used an earlier pick if the bidding system was in place, they took players before him and traded away pick 20
2004 - Nathan Ablett - pick 48 - Geelong gave picks 12 & 16 for Ottens, and were also able to pickup Prismall before Ablett
2006 - Hawkins - This was the straw that broke the back for the FS rule, Hawkins was regarded very highly and would have gone high in the draft, instead they were able to get some guy called Joel Selwood and Djerrkura

Bartel, Kelly, Johnson, Ottens, Prismal, Selwood - I dare say not all and maybe only half of these guys would have got to Geelong if they had paid a decent price for their FS selections. To make things worse, now they have been given 2 first round picks for Ablett, which they can use over 5 years, there was a lot of bleating about a guy they picked up at pick 40.

One thing is for sure, there is a lot more to it than 2 champions - Scarlett and Ablett. Make no mistake, the Father-Son dynasty will live on for awhile yet.

desertsaint · Mon 27 Jun 2011 2:01pm

geelong got very lucky with the father-son rule. no argument.
but imo it's a great rule - sometimes you get lucky.

Junction Oval · Mon 27 Jun 2011 2:13pm

Who have the Saints had as FS

I can only think of Michael/Neil Roberts. There must be others.

Dr Spaceman · Mon 27 Jun 2011 2:19pm

Junction Oval wrote:Who have the Saints had as FS

I can only think of Michael/Neil Roberts. There must be others.

David Sierakowski (Brian Sierakowski)
Chad Davis (Allan Davis)
Ben Stewart (Ian Stewart)

May be more....

dragit · Post: # 1096096Post **dragit** » Mon 27 Jun 2011 2:22pm

desertsaint wrote:geelong got very lucky with the father-son rule. no argument.
but imo it's a great rule - sometimes you get lucky.

The rule wasn't great and that's why it has been changedâ€¦
e.g. we bid for Ayce Cordy last year, forcing the dogs to use their first pick. Port & Sydney bid for Wallis & Liberatore forcing them to use their first 2 picks.
It's great to see family ties continue at clubs, but they should be selected at appropriate picks. Lets hope Riewoldt and Lenny have 10 sons each!

St Nick · Post: # 1096097Post **St Nick** » Mon 27 Jun 2011 2:24pm

Con Gorozidis wrote:
plugger66 wrote:Just maybe WCE were no good last year due to injury and form and that is the reason they are going well this year because of less injuries and better form. I dont see why any club would tank when only 8 points out of the 8 when there are so many games left. A loss this week may change that thinking though.
I was just waiting to hear from the plug man! you always ask me "how is finishing 15th better than 8th?"

i have a question for you plug.

besides finishing low - how do you propose we get high quality talent in to the club?

I would also ask

How are we going to make a call on fringe players like Winmar, Smith, Lynch, Walsh, Cahill, Johnson who havent been afforded many opportunities?

Or do you propose we just de-list them all and hang on to more seasoned veterans again for 2012? Bottoming out isnt just about finishing low - its about experimenting with what you have.

I agree whole heartedly with you Con. I have always said this (under a different nic

) but always been shouted down and then banned.

The Swans are a perfect example. After their successive Grand Finals (2005 and 2006), they have basically kept on making the top 8 but they are not a contender. Honourable finishes will get them nowhere. Whereas West Coast (their opponent in those successive GF's), plummeted down the ladder (unlike the Swans), got a host of early draft picks, traded Judd and got Kennedy and 2 more early draft picks. All of a sudden you can see the Eagles winning more silverware in the next 4 years.

St Kilda need to take note of this (they won't though). They have to get rid of (I won't name them.....no point) and play all the youngsters. This will (1) get the youngsters up to 50 games experience as soon as possible, (2) ensure we finish in the bottom 4 and pick up high draft picks.

There is no other way!!! FFS.

This is effectively what we did in 2000, 2001 and 2002 however it wasn't planned. It was due to our own crapness that we were down there in the first place.

borderbarry · Mon 27 Jun 2011 2:28pm

Con G said, "besides finishing low - how do you propose we get high quality talent in to the club?"
There is an opportunity this year with the four 17yr old that GWS are allowed to swap with other clubs.

dragit · Post: # 1096101Post **dragit** » Mon 27 Jun 2011 2:30pm

St Nick wrote:
Con Gorozidis wrote:
plugger66 wrote:Just maybe WCE were no good last year due to injury and form and that is the reason they are going well this year because of less injuries and better form. I dont see why any club would tank when only 8 points out of the 8 when there are so many games left. A loss this week may change that thinking though.
I was just waiting to hear from the plug man! you always ask me "how is finishing 15th better than 8th?"

i have a question for you plug.

besides finishing low - how do you propose we get high quality talent in to the club?

I would also ask

How are we going to make a call on fringe players like Winmar, Smith, Lynch, Walsh, Cahill, Johnson who havent been afforded many opportunities?

Or do you propose we just de-list them all and hang on to more seasoned veterans again for 2012? Bottoming out isnt just about finishing low - its about experimenting with what you have.
I agree whole heartedly with you Con. I have always said this (under a different nic ) but always been shouted down and then banned.

The Swans are a perfect example. After their successive Grand Finals (2005 and 2006), they have basically kept on making the top 8 but they are not a contender. Honourable finishes will get them nowhere. Whereas West Coast (their opponent in those successive GF's), plummeted down the ladder (unlike the Swans), got a host of early draft picks, traded Judd and got Kennedy and 2 more early draft picks. All of a sudden you can see the Eagles winning more silverware in the next 4 years.

St Kilda need to take note of this (they won't though). They have to get rid of (I won't name them.....no point) and play all the youngsters. This will (1) get the youngsters up to 50 games experience as soon as possible, (2) ensure we finish in the bottom 4 and pick up high draft picks.

There is no other way!!! FFS.

Things have changed since your mob picked up Thomas and Pendlebury, tanking ain't what it used to be - collingwood picking up #2 & #5 - 2 years after successive Grand Finals forced a re-think of the rule.