A question I would like to ask......

[citywest]

Should AR be picking the team to try and get as many wins as possible or use 2014 as a development year?

[sainters4eva]

Both

[satchmo]

Either.

[st.byron]

None of the above

[Con Gorozidis]

This is a tough question.

I think whatever the answer is needs to be clear and communicated at Board level - CEO- Pelchen - AR- players - sponsors - fans.

Whatever they decide on this - its is important everyone is firmly on the same page. Otherwise you get internal and external instability.

[kosifantutti]

This is a tough question.

I think whatever the answer is needs to be clear and communicated at Board level - CEO- Pelchen - AR- players - sponsors - fans.

Whatever they decide on this - its is important everyone is firmly on the same page. Otherwise you get internal and external instability.

I can't imagine them making an announcement that they aren't trying to win games.

[PADDLEPOP1001]

Winning games creates a good developing enviroment and culture !

[saintspremiers]

They can try and win games but most likely will fail more often than not.

It will take care of itself naturally.

[I Love Peter Kiel]

Let's see after the first two rounds.

There will be a HUGE build up to round one, with the Dear Leader himself Paul Roos coaching the DEES.

Depending on how this goes, we could start with two wins (GWS in round two).

After that, just go for it! Could be a let-down, but who cares?

[Con Gorozidis]

This is a tough question.

I think whatever the answer is needs to be clear and communicated at Board level - CEO- Pelchen - AR- players - sponsors - fans.

Whatever they decide on this - its is important everyone is firmly on the same page. Otherwise you get internal and external instability.

I can't imagine them making an announcement that they aren't trying to win games.

No - but like the bulldogs did last year they can make it clear they are developing for the future.

Obviously - On game day you try 100% to win. But at the selection table you manage your list differently.

Clearly the confusion on all this was one of the reasons Pelchen and Watters clashed and it is also widely reported that senior players were pissed off at the mixed messages and flip flopping on this.

As I said - i don't know what the decision is - but everyone needs to be on the same page from players to the admin staff.

[Con Gorozidis]

Winning games creates a good developing enviroment and culture !

This is a a contradiction somewhat.

I think the OP is asking how we will balance/trade-off winning and development.

Sure if you can have both - your cake and eat it - then thats great. But in reality you can't always have both.

If we can develop/play young players and win the flag at the same time thats awesome!

Fairytales are cool too.

[citywest]

You got it Con Gorozidis. I think the focus should be on development. If everything went right with injuries and form we could win up to 8 games this year. But should that be the aim? I reckon the aim should be to give the new recruits at least 12 games each and also get the rest of the young guys up to the 50 games mark as quick as possible.

One way to do this is to ensure that the 3 interchange players and the sub are players 22 years of age and under. Stick to this rule every week and then pick your best 18 available.

[plugger66]

You got it Con Gorozidis. I think the focus should be on development. If everything went right with injuries and form we could win up to 8 games this year. But should that be the aim? I reckon the aim should be to give the new recruits at least 12 games each and also get the rest of the young guys up to the 50 games mark as quick as possible.

One way to do this is to ensure that the 3 interchange players and the sub are players 22 years of age and under. Stick to this rule every week and then pick your best 18 available.

Is it 1990 again. The 3 interchange being under 22. What does that even mean? The interchange come onto the ground after about 2 minutes. The sides are now made up of 21 players. Interchange is for a rest only or for injured players. I have an idea. lets pick our best 22 each week but if an older player is close in ability to a younger player then go for the younger player whether he starts on or off the ground. Also the interchange is basically a place for mids now so having some rule of being under 22 could mean gifting games to guys who dont deserve it. Play guys who deserve games or at least show in the seconds they have that special talent that will make them good senior players.

[PADDLEPOP1001]

I agree with Plugger best 22 available!

[Dis Believer]

You got it Con Gorozidis. I think the focus should be on development. If everything went right with injuries and form we could win up to 8 games this year. But should that be the aim? I reckon the aim should be to give the new recruits at least 12 games each and also get the rest of the young guys up to the 50 games mark as quick as possible.

One way to do this is to ensure that the 3 interchange players and the sub are players 22 years of age and under. Stick to this rule every week and then pick your best 18 available.

The quickest way to bugger up the development of a young kid is to gift him games when he doesn't deserve it. If he has earned a chance and a spot is open, you play him, even if you tell him you will play him for 5 straight games to give him chance to adjust to the pace, he still has to earn the initial game.

Agree with P66 (groan), your statement about the bench is nonsensical.

[mad saint guy]

I think there should be a 60/40 balance between focus on development and putting out the best team possible. Kids shouldn't be gifted games for nothing and a player like Ray shouldn't be dropped if he's getting 20-25 touches each week. On the other hand, if a spot in the senior side opens up and you've got a kid and a veteran in similar (good) form at Sandringham, I think you need to play the kid.

One extreme might look like this

B: Gwilt, Delaney, Geary
HB: Roberton, Fisher, Dempster
C: Montagna, Hayes, Jones
HF: Schneider, Riewoldt, Savage
F: Milera, Maister, Stanley

Foll: Hickey, Steven, Armitage
Int: Ray, Gilbert, Newnes
Sub: Ross

That would be pretty close to the best team we could field for 2014 (not going by talent, but by experience and physical maturity), and playing a team like that all year would severely slow down the rebuild. That team would beat the rest of the bottom sides most of the time and even stay close to some of the better sides for 2 or 3 quarters, but there's very little development happening there. I think you probably need to replace 5 or 6 of the older guys with kids to get the best balance for St Kilda's future. Personally I'd replace Gwilt, Jones, Milera, Maister and Ray with Bruce, Curren, Wright, Lee and one of Siposs/Markworth/Webster/Dunstan/Billings.

[Life Long Saint]

Regardless of wins/losses in 2014, the side needs to play a brand of football that can win games.
This MUST occur in both the seniors and at Sandringham.
New players that come to the club must learn how to play the same brand of football regardless of the jumper they're wearing.

The success of Geelong is not that they've been playing young kids, but the young kids they've been playing can slot into the senior side and know exactly how their game plan works because they've been playing the same way in the VFL.

[plugger66]

Regardless of wins/losses in 2014, the side needs to play a brand of football that can win games.
This MUST occur in both the seniors and at Sandringham.
New players that come to the club must learn how to play the same brand of football regardless of the jumper they're wearing.

The success of Geelong is not that they've been playing young kids, but the young kids they've been playing can slot into the senior side and know exactly how their game plan works because they've been playing the same way in the VFL.

Not sure that will happen this year at sandy. We may have the coach but I think they may have the say on selection. Who has the say on the type of game plan they play could be very interesting. we really do need our own reserves side.

[Cairnsman]

Regardless of wins/losses in 2014, the side needs to play a brand of football that can win games.
This MUST occur in both the seniors and at Sandringham.
New players that come to the club must learn how to play the same brand of football regardless of the jumper they're wearing.

The success of Geelong is not that they've been playing young kids, but the young kids they've been playing can slot into the senior side and know exactly how their game plan works because they've been playing the same way in the VFL.

That is a very good point and probably explains a lot as to WHY the Geelong model works, acknowledging that it is probably not the only factor but your point makes complete sense.

[Con Gorozidis]

agree on the geelong thing.
they also have good players which counts and just won another vfl flag.
their vfl side plays good hard footy week in week out and that really should be an aim but as many of thr sandy watchers lamented the last few years some of the saints recruits werent even vfl standard. this hurts.

as for selection. for eg i see nothing to gain trying to eek 44 games from dempster and fisher this year.
but yeah - on the other extreme dont play kids for the sake of it and dont play guys like saad week in week out when they are clearly way out of form or injured or both.

equally sometimes a kid needs to managed and given a break. especially in july the kids seem to struggle.

[samuraisaint]

I think if Fisher is fit he should be out there. Dempster too, provided their form warrants it. Last year Fisher missed most of the year. Roberton, Simpkin, Delaney could all learn a lot as well as develop a lot of confidence playing alongside Fisher and Dempster.

[onlooker2]

IMO it has to be both with the emphasis on the development of the playing list. If a win eventuates through our performance and development targets being met - terrific but our main objectives this year must be directed at doing the right things on the ground and the rest will follow.

[Cairnsman]

IMO it has to be both with the emphasis on the development of the playing list. If a win eventuates through our performance and development targets being met - terrific but our main objectives this year must be directed at doing the right things on the ground and the rest will follow.

Agree however the club also needs to start doing the right thing in all departments at every level. Win/Loss ratio will look after itself once that happens.

[Zed]

Should AR be picking the team to try and get as many wins as possible or use 2014 as a development year?

We must have the most inexperienced ruck division in the AFL by a mile. IF winning games this year was our number 1 priority then we had a chance to supplement our ruck stocks with some experience by recruiting Jolly. The fact we didn't tells me we see more value in getting games into Hickey and Longer rather than winning a few more ruck clearances this year.

I expect we will be striving to win every game, but if the choice comes down between selecting a player who could be part of our 2017/8 tilt or a player who will be retired by then (and assuming both are roughly equivalent form wise) then I expect the youngster gets picked every time.

[Wrote for Luck]

Same can be said for not getting into free agency with older players.
I think it's important we are competitive this year. Look at the drop in membership. So we not only need to win games but we need a bit of excitement.
Hopefully if White and Lee and Stanley all come on, we can start selling more memberships.