Inexperinced or just not good enough?

[Loyally Numbed]

Is lack of experience, reguarly cited here, really an excuse for poor performance?

I played from the age of 9 in school and in local clubs, until my late teens, when leg issues forced me to quit.

I was a very experienced Player by age 13!

All of the Superstars, and most of the very good Players that I have observed were good from the get go.
Sure, some Plodders have risen up a couple of levels as they gained games, but for the most part, you've either got or you ain't.

My point, as it relates to St. Kilda, is in regard to the seemingly painfully slow way that new Players have been utilized and then, after, seemingly an eternity, finding out that some, or most!, of these younsters are just not up to it, despite the lengthy 'mangagment process'.

I would assume that most Players, like myself, have played from an early age, and have had to go through different age groups and levels, which brings you into contact with bigger bodies and more experienced Players.

I just don't buy the line that football at the elite AFL level is so different or so much more difficult, given the apprenticeship most young Players get.

Are the powers that be at St Kilda pussyfooting around too much, or is it simply bad recruiting?

[dragit]

Bad recruiting is the main issue, we have a vacuum of players from the 08, 09 & 10 drafts where we barely have anything to show.

However I think you are completely underestimating the step-up required from the lower levels to AFL. GWS & GCS have been completely loaded with top 10 talent for years now, but are still struggling against average sides.

There's only a handful of first year players each year that can mix it with seasoned pros.

[SainterK]

I was in the stairwell when all the players injured walked past, we really are missing quality at the moment.

[gringo]

Bad recruiting is the main issue, we have a vacuum of players from the 08, 09 & 10 drafts where we barely have anything to show.

However I think you are completely underestimating the step-up required from the lower levels to AFL. GWS & GCS have been completely loaded with top 10 talent for years now, but are still struggling against average sides.

There's only a handful of first year players each year that can mix it with seasoned pros.

Not only that, we have lost Geary, Gilbert and Armo the only real quality players besides possibly Ray and a below usual standard Steven from the few mid career players we do have so we are relying on about 5 or 6 very experienced players of who 3 are elite and a group offirst, second and third year players.

On a separate note I played basketball and I was very experienced but when we went up to A grade it's not just experience that counts. You lose your nerve because everyone around you is so much better and the pace goes up to the point where you can't think clearly. I went alright when we were at lower levels but you are just a soldier when you go up a level.

You get better the more you play though and eventually the nerves settle.

[Loyally Numbed]

[quote="dragit"]Bad recruiting is the main issue, we have a vacuum of players from the 08, 09 & 10 drafts where we barely have anything to show.

Tottally agree, we've had a pack of mostly duds over the last 5 years, and using the excuse that they're not 'experienced enough, or that they need 'blooding in' or similar, is just prolonging the pain.

There's an element of luck in recruiting, and you're gonna luck out, as the Saints have recently, but we seem to just hang on too long, to some of these duds, with, in my opinion, lame duck excuses such as the 'need more time', stuff.

Additionally, this has the negative effect of not putting much pressure on the stating 18.

[Bluthy]

Under Lyon and Watters we've had a pretty poor development environment for young players. They weren't given much senior game time, confused about their roles, poor feedback about what they needed to do, a destabilised club without clear focus. A lot of them stagnated and got bad habits and demoralised. I got a call yesterday from ST Kilda to raise money to support the development of young players so they realise that its more than just getting talented kids in - see what happened with Melbourne and Carlton. You need a proper pathway and guidance. At 18 you're mentally and emotionally basically a child. Milera, Sippos, Dunnel, Murdoch etc are almost a lost generation. Whether some can be redeemed will need to be seen.

[dragit]

but we seem to just hang on too long, to some of these duds, with, in my opinion, lame duck excuses such as the 'need more time', stuff.

Really?
I think we've turned over 20-odd players over the past 2 years… probably lose another 6 or 7 at least this year, that's over 60% of the list…
You have to have players to replace them with.

[Cairnsman]

Is lack of experience, reguarly cited here, really an excuse for poor performance?

I played from the age of 9 in school and in local clubs, until my late teens, when leg issues forced me to quit.

I was a very experienced Player by age 13!

All of the Superstars, and most of the very good Players that I have observed were good from the get go.
Sure, some Plodders have risen up a couple of levels as they gained games, but for the most part, you've either got or you ain't.

My point, as it relates to St. Kilda, is in regard to the seemingly painfully slow way that new Players have been utilized and then, after, seemingly an eternity, finding out that some, or most!, of these younsters are just not up to it, despite the lengthy 'mangagment process'.

I would assume that most Players, like myself, have played from an early age, and have had to go through different age groups and levels, which brings you into contact with bigger bodies and more experienced Players.

I just don't buy the line that football at the elite AFL level is so different or so much more difficult, given the apprenticeship most young Players get.

Are the powers that be at St Kilda pussyfooting around too much, or is it simply bad recruiting?

Are you sure you've got the right team, this is a forum for the AFL Saints, not St George.

[FQF]

Didn't hang on too long to Winmar. He was cut in the middle of a contract.

[Saint wagga]

Some players can buck the trend and come in and have immediate impact at AFL level at age 18/19...it's usually a good sign that they'll be gun players for a good long career (But not a 100% guarantee). It aint the norm though, some gun players still take 2-3 seasons to find their feet, build they're frames and confidence and then they can dominate (BJ is the classic example of this)...the majority of solid to very good afl players still take 2-4 years to find their feet...it's not all science, it's not all intangibles, but the overall trend means it's an ineacapeable truth.

[Loyally Numbed]

Bad recruiting is the main issue, we have a vacuum of players from the 08, 09 & 10 drafts where we barely have anything to show.

However I think you are completely underestimating the step-up required from the lower levels to AFL. GWS & GCS have been completely loaded with top 10 talent for years now, but are still struggling against average sides.

There's only a handful of first year players each year that can mix it with seasoned pros.

Not only that, we have lost Geary, Gilbert and Armo the only real quality players besides possibly Ray and a below usual standard Steven from the few mid career players we do have so we are relying on about 5 or 6 very experienced players of who 3 are elite and a group offirst, second and third year players.

On a separate note I played basketball and I was very experienced but when we went up to A grade it's not just experience that counts. You lose your nerve because everyone around you is so much better and the pace goes up to the point where you can't think clearly. I went alright when we were at lower levels but you are just a soldier when you go up a level.

You get better the more you play though and eventually the nerves settle.

I agree that the pyschological aspect is a large part of it, but you mention 2nd and 3rd year players, don't you think that Players that have been in the system for 2 or 3 years and are still suffering from nerves is an issue?

My issue is not so much with current team performance, it is with Supporters and, to a certain degree Admin and Coaching staff not being ruthless enough.

The evidence of a lack of ruthlessness is clear to see.

[BringBackMadDog]

Is lack of experience, reguarly cited here, really an excuse for poor performance?

I played from the age of 9 in school and in local clubs, until my late teens, when leg issues forced me to quit.

I was a very experienced Player by age 13!

All of the Superstars, and most of the very good Players that I have observed were good from the get go.
Sure, some Plodders have risen up a couple of levels as they gained games, but for the most part, you've either got or you ain't.

My point, as it relates to St. Kilda, is in regard to the seemingly painfully slow way that new Players have been utilized and then, after, seemingly an eternity, finding out that some, or most!, of these younsters are just not up to it, despite the lengthy 'mangagment process'.

I would assume that most Players, like myself, have played from an early age, and have had to go through different age groups and levels, which brings you into contact with bigger bodies and more experienced Players.

I just don't buy the line that football at the elite AFL level is so different or so much more difficult, given the apprenticeship most young Players get.

Are the powers that be at St Kilda pussyfooting around too much, or is it simply bad recruiting?

this could be the most naive post of all time, most of the new recruits have only played in under age football against boys their own age, they then have to take that gigantic step up when they play against men who are so much physically stronger, match hardened and fitter than they are. Add to that, the speed of the AFL in comparison to what they are used to is about 100 times different.
The general consensus is that it will take a new recruit around 3 full pre-seasons to build the required strength and endurance to compete in the AFL plus around 50-60 games of match day experience before you can judge whether they will make it or not.

[terry smith rules]

Is lack of experience, reguarly cited here, really an excuse for poor performance?

I played from the age of 9 in school and in local clubs, until my late teens, when leg issues forced me to quit.

I was a very experienced Player by age 13!

All of the Superstars, and most of the very good Players that I have observed were good from the get go.
Sure, some Plodders have risen up a couple of levels as they gained games, but for the most part, you've either got or you ain't.

My point, as it relates to St. Kilda, is in regard to the seemingly painfully slow way that new Players have been utilized and then, after, seemingly an eternity, finding out that some, or most!, of these younsters are just not up to it, despite the lengthy 'mangagment process'.

I would assume that most Players, like myself, have played from an early age, and have had to go through different age groups and levels, which brings you into contact with bigger bodies and more experienced Players.

I just don't buy the line that football at the elite AFL level is so different or so much more difficult, given the apprenticeship most young Players get.

Are the powers that be at St Kilda pussyfooting around too much, or is it simply bad recruiting?

this could be the most naive post of all time, most of the new recruits have only played in under age football against boys their own age, they then have to take that gigantic step up when they play against men who are so much physically stronger, match hardened and fitter than they are. Add to that, the speed of the AFL in comparison to what they are used to is about 100 times different.
The general consensus is that it will take a new recruit around 3 full pre-seasons to build the required strength and endurance to compete in the AFL plus around 50-60 games of match day experience before you can judge whether they will make it or not.

+1 mad dog, unbelievably naive post

[bergholt]

Whenever this sort of discussion comes up, I have to bring Leigh Montagna into the discussion.

His first four years of footy:

2002: 1 game, 0 goals, per game: 4.0 disposals, 2.0 tackles
2003: 12 games, 12 goals, per game: 10.4 disposals, 1.5 tackles
2004: 9 games, 9 goals, per game: 11.2 disposals, 2.8 tackles
2005: 8 games, 6 goals, per game: 15.1 disposals, 2.4 tackles

At the start of 06 he'd shown basically nothing to suggest that he could be a quality AFL player. He was 23, played 30 games, had five pre-seasons under his belt. He'd predominantly played as a small forward/half-forward flanker but he wasn't even kicking that many goals.

2006: 22 games, 12 goals, per game: 19.1 disposals, 3.7 tackles
2007: 21 games, 10 goals, per game: 23.9 disposals, 3.6 tackles
2008: 25 games, 12 goals, per game: 22.7 disposals, 3.3 tackles

In 06 he turned a corner and lifted his workrate. Suddenly he became an AFL quality midfielder. He crossed the 30 possession barrier for the first time. He was also tackling a lot more. And that grew into 07, when he picked up 9 Brownlow votes and finished 3rd in our B&F. He still wasn't exactly a superstar but he was doing pretty well - four 30+ possession games. 08 wasn't quite as good but he played every game including 3 finals.

2009: 24 games, 8 goals, per game: 27.9 disposals, 6.3 tackles
2010: 26 games, 18 goals, per game: 28.7 disposals, 4.9 tackles

Finally in 2009, his 8th season in the competition, when he was 26 years old, he hit his straps. He was All-Australian and finished equal 14th in the Brownlow. He had lots of 30+ games and one 40+. The next year similar: he was All-Australian again and finished equal 9th in the Brownlow, 2nd in our B&F. His contested possession and tackle rates increased and he just got more of the footy. He'd become a true all-round midfielder.

But no-one predicted that in 2005 when he was only picked for 8 games, one for less than 10 possessions and only two over 20. He was 22 and this was his fourth year in the system, but he was nowhere near the player he'd become.

We've got twenty guys on the list who basically fit the category of Joey in 2005: Roberton, Weller, Markworth, Bruce, Curren, Siposs, Newnes, Ross, Longer, Webster, Minchington, Murdoch, Wright, Saunders, White, Pierce, Dunstan, Billings, Templeton, Acres.

I'm not saying all these guys will be stars. Half of them probably won't make it, and only one or two will be All-Australian - if we're lucky. But I am saying that some guys take years to come on.

Not sure why that is exactly. Maybe it's just very hard to play sport at an elite level. Strength and stamina have to build up gradually - not many 18 year olds have a body like Luke Dunstan. And the mental aspects take even longer to solidify. With Joey it was workrate. It took him years to understand how hard you have to work to be an AFL footballer, let alone to be a star. Lenny Hayes is living proof that the mental aspect of the game is at least as important as the physical aspect. Not many 18 year olds have a Chris Judd-style perfectly well-balanced psychology. When I was 18 I was all over the shop. Must be even harder as an elite athlete.

So I think you're underestimating how hard it is to succeed in the AFL. Underage footy is a fundamentally different game.

[Cairnsman]

Whenever this sort of discussion comes up, I have to bring Leigh Montagna into the discussion.

His first four years of footy:

2002: 1 game, 0 goals, per game: 4.0 disposals, 2.0 tackles
2003: 12 games, 12 goals, per game: 10.4 disposals, 1.5 tackles
2004: 9 games, 9 goals, per game: 11.2 disposals, 2.8 tackles
2005: 8 games, 6 goals, per game: 15.1 disposals, 2.4 tackles

At the start of 06 he'd shown basically nothing to suggest that he could be a quality AFL player. He was 23, played 30 games, had five pre-seasons under his belt. He'd predominantly played as a small forward/half-forward flanker but he wasn't even kicking that many goals.

2006: 22 games, 12 goals, per game: 19.1 disposals, 3.7 tackles
2007: 21 games, 10 goals, per game: 23.9 disposals, 3.6 tackles
2008: 25 games, 12 goals, per game: 22.7 disposals, 3.3 tackles

In 06 he turned a corner and lifted his workrate. Suddenly he became an AFL quality midfielder. He crossed the 30 possession barrier for the first time. He was also tackling a lot more. And that grew into 07, when he picked up 9 Brownlow votes and finished 3rd in our B&F. He still wasn't exactly a superstar but he was doing pretty well - four 30+ possession games. 08 wasn't quite as good but he played every game including 3 finals.

2009: 24 games, 8 goals, per game: 27.9 disposals, 6.3 tackles
2010: 26 games, 18 goals, per game: 28.7 disposals, 4.9 tackles

Finally in 2009, his 8th season in the competition, when he was 26 years old, he hit his straps. He was All-Australian and finished equal 14th in the Brownlow. He had lots of 30+ games and one 40+. The next year similar: he was All-Australian again and finished equal 9th in the Brownlow, 2nd in our B&F. His contested possession and tackle rates increased and he just got more of the footy. He'd become a true all-round midfielder.

But no-one predicted that in 2005 when he was only picked for 8 games, one for less than 10 possessions and only two over 20. He was 22 and this was his fourth year in the system, but he was nowhere near the player he'd become.

We've got twenty guys on the list who basically fit the category of Joey in 2005: Roberton, Weller, Markworth, Bruce, Curren, Siposs, Newnes, Ross, Longer, Webster, Minchington, Murdoch, Wright, Saunders, White, Pierce, Dunstan, Billings, Templeton, Acres.

I'm not saying all these guys will be stars. Half of them probably won't make it, and only one or two will be All-Australian - if we're lucky. But I am saying that some guys take years to come on.

Not sure why that is exactly. Maybe it's just very hard to play sport at an elite level. Strength and stamina have to build up gradually - not many 18 year olds have a body like Luke Dunstan. And the mental aspects take even longer to solidify. With Joey it was workrate. It took him years to understand how hard you have to work to be an AFL footballer, let alone to be a star. Lenny Hayes is living proof that the mental aspect of the game is at least as important as the physical aspect. Not many 18 year olds have a Chris Judd-style perfectly well-balanced psychology. When I was 18 I was all over the shop. Must be even harder as an elite athlete.

So I think you're underestimating how hard it is to succeed in the AFL. Underage footy is a fundamentally different game.

Geez I didn't realise Monty took so long to become elite. It's lucky he wasn't given a tap on the shoulder at the age of 13.

[SemperFidelis]

Whenever this sort of discussion comes up, I have to bring Leigh Montagna into the discussion.

His first four years of footy:

2002: 1 game, 0 goals, per game: 4.0 disposals, 2.0 tackles
2003: 12 games, 12 goals, per game: 10.4 disposals, 1.5 tackles
2004: 9 games, 9 goals, per game: 11.2 disposals, 2.8 tackles
2005: 8 games, 6 goals, per game: 15.1 disposals, 2.4 tackles

Cracking post bergholt.

Please feel free to repost it every single time my frustration causes me to complain about one of the babies (Siposs on Saturday night as a prime example).

It may be that we need a "temporary levy" on our Club motto. Mr Google suggests patientia vinces.

"By patience you will conquer".

[dragit]

It may be that we need a "temporary levy" on our Club motto. Mr Google suggests patientia vinces.

"By patience you will conquer".

or tragicis comicis ferre - endure this tragic comedy

[FQF]

Great post bergholt — really good use of stats and analysis.

It could be turned into a feature piece.

[SemperFidelis]

It may be that we need a "temporary levy" on our Club motto. Mr Google suggests patientia vinces.

"By patience you will conquer".

or tragicis comicis ferre - endure this tragic comedy

Good call dragit!

I'm revising to vincit qui patitur

"He who endures will conquer". Describes most Saints supporters I know. Endurance specialists.

[Eastern]

Our list is evolving. I suspect there are bits of BOTH.

The Leigh Montagna fact sheet is a good one. Add to it; He was pick 37 in his Draft !!

[Zed]

Whenever this sort of discussion comes up, I have to bring Leigh Montagna into the discussion.

His first four years of footy:

2002: 1 game, 0 goals, per game: 4.0 disposals, 2.0 tackles
2003: 12 games, 12 goals, per game: 10.4 disposals, 1.5 tackles
2004: 9 games, 9 goals, per game: 11.2 disposals, 2.8 tackles
2005: 8 games, 6 goals, per game: 15.1 disposals, 2.4 tackles

Cracking post bergholt.

Please feel free to repost it every single time my frustration causes me to complain about one of the babies (Siposs on Saturday night as a prime example).

It may be that we need a "temporary levy" on our Club motto. Mr Google suggests patientia vinces.

"By patience you will conquer".

Yes great post. Please also bring it out every time one of those naive 'better to not win a game and finish bottom' posters gets on a rant. Your post just proves clever drafting and good development is the key to success - not how many number 1 draft picks you stockpile.

[BigMart]

Not good enough...

Leaders past their prime
Peak aged not that great
Kids are still developing

[beartalbot]

After poor list management and ordinary recruiting during the period 2008-10, I believe we are currently on the right track in the team rebuilding process.
Lack of success in the above areas can be seen when looking at the imbalance in game time of all members of the team we put out against Carlton on Monday night.

200+ games - 4 players
100-200 games - 4 players
50-100 games - 1 player
0-50 games - 13 players

The massive gap between players with 50-200 games experience is proof that we are missing a generation of players recruited during the above period.
I am confident that most of the 13 players in the lower bracket will form the basis of our team in the next successful era, along with Ross, Saunders, Markworth, Dunnell etc.

Future success in balanced recruiting is needed to top us off in our quest in returning to finals football.
With the lack of experience shown above, along with the extra demands on older players with weary bodies, it is only natural that we will have poor performances at times, with the odd exciting result like the Essendon win thrown in, before we become more consistent.

[Loyally Numbed]

this could be the most naive post of all time, most of the new recruits have only played in under age football against boys their own age, they then have to take that gigantic step up when they play against men who are so much physically stronger, match hardened and fitter than they are. Add to that, the speed of the AFL in comparison to what they are used to is about 100 times different.
The general consensus is that it will take a new recruit around 3 full pre-seasons to build the required strength and endurance to compete in the AFL plus around 50-60 games of match day experience before you can judge whether they will make it or not.


Most new recruits DO play against older men who are much physically stronger, especially in the bush, that's the way it works, if you've gotr talent you get promoted to higher level teams.

It's not a 'gigantic step', nor is it '100 times different', you really think that a hard bodied 25 year old is THAT much quicker than a fit 18 year old?

The general concensus may or not be true, but you miss my point, are we gonna wait another 3 seasons to realize that the current crop are duds?

Fast forward to 2017, message from the St.Kilda Prez,

"Unfortunately, the young guys we took in, in 2014 haven't come up to stratch, but the good news is we've got another batch, we'll let you know if they're gooduns in 2020, thanks for your patience"

Have a look at the Hawks or Geelong, they don't seem to have plodders running around in their teams 3 years on, are they just lucky, or better at filtering young talent?

[Cairnsman]

Doh!...why didn't I pick up on it yesterday.