Not turning against Roos.

[liz]

BFD. Sheedy had consecutive runs of six and seven years in the finals and he is a crazy old bastard.

a) He wasn't a crazy old bastard when he achieved that.

b) He is acknowledged as one of the recent coaching greats

c) Did he achieve that within the last 10 years of almost exclusive recruitment via the draft?

I read somewhere last week that Worsfold has coached the Eagles into the finals in each of his six seasons in charge. That included a pretty lame performance against us in 2004 (and instant exit) and I can't remember them doing much in 2002 or 2003 either (though can't recall exactly where they did finish).

[hammo]

Geez people get critical. Roos took us to 2 Grand Finals - yes 2. We won 1 and nearly won another with a team that was and still is described as not very talented.

Yep great. We're all grateful. But the reality is the list needs an overhaul now just as Port Adelaide did in 2005 when their inevitable slide down the ladder occurred after a period of sustained success.

[goswannie14]

Adelaide has played in 6 of the past 7.
Brisbane played in 6 in a row.
Prior to 2002 Carlton used to do it regularly.
Essendon played in 7 in a row or 16 out of 19.
Kangaroos played in 8 in a row.
Port played in 5 in a row.
West Coast has played in 6 in a row currently.

That's all well and good, and I'm not arguing that, but IIRC this is the first time since the 1930's that we have played in the finals for 5 years in a row.

[NMWBloods]

This is the part people don't get and I tried to highlight in my Collingwood match report in rd 21.

Teams that have a period at the top will have a decline unless they turn over the team dramatically. Typically they don't straight away, but occasionally they do within a few years.

eg: Adelaide flags in '97 and '98, 13th and 11th in '99 and '00.

Brisbane flags in '01-'03, GF in '04, 11t, 13th and 10th in '05, '06 and '07.

Carlton finals from '93-'96 and then had a last gasp '99-'01 (half the players in the '99 side were the same as the '95 flag side), and since then have finished in the bottom 2 for 5 of 6 years.

Collingwood - snagged a flag in '90, try to hang on in early '90s with a few finals appearances, and then fell in a heap for the rest of the '90s.

Essendon - finals from '98-'04, but signs of weakening showed up since their '01 GF appearance, and have finished 13th, 15th and 12th in '05, '06 and '07.

Hawthorn - finals from '82 to '94, successfully turning over their team, but it all started to unravel from then, playing in just 1 finals match in next five years.

Kangaroos - after their successful era of finals from '93-'00, struggled from '01-'06 playing in just 2 finals matches and losing both.
Same in the early 1980s - always thereabouts in finals (12 appearances in 14 years), but fell away from '86-'92.

Port - after flag in '04 fell away in '05 and '06 as they replaced over half their premiership team.

West Coast - after their 10 straight finals appearances from '90 to '99 they finished 13th and 14th in '00 and '01.


Rebuilding is not something to be ashamed of - it's a fact of life and without it a team that has had a degree of success for a sustained period, will suffer a downward spiral.

[ROK Lobster]

That's all well and good, and I'm not arguing that, but IIRC this is the first time since the 1930's that we have played in the finals for 5 years in a row.

More teams than ever are playing finals footy.

[liz]

Yep great. We're all grateful. But the reality is the list needs an overhaul now just as Port Adelaide did in 2005 when their inevitable slide down the ladder occurred after a period of sustained success.

Did Port really go into overhaul mode or was it natural (and not all wanted) attrition?

They lost Stevens (still young) because he wanted to go home to Victoria. They lost Josh Carr (still plenty of footy left in him) because he wanted to go home to Perth.

The likes of Francou and James retired when injuries got the better of them. The only two players I can recall them actively cutting or trading that caused a few raised eyebrows were Montgomery and Pickett. And Montgomery was a relative newcomer to the squad and in the twilight of his career (and only did OK when he went back to the Dogs) while Pickett, too, hadn't been there long and already had a history of great years followed by mediocre years.

I think some moderate turnover of the list is in order but my reading of the Port model is that you don't need to cut particularly deep to rebuild. And the core of the team who has got them to where they are this year were all integral parts of their 2004 premiership team (eg the Cornes, Burgoyne senior, Wakelin, Lade), players already on their list back then who were maybe just marginal in terms of winning a premiership (eg Burgoyne jnr, Cassissi), and a few very good late picks (Pearce, Westhoff, Rodan) who any club could have recruited regardless of where they finished on the ladder. Their two highish picks they've received since falling from their high are Boak and Adam Thomson, both of whom may become important players in the future but have only been marginal in terms of this year's performance.

Brisbane don't look to be too far behind Port but again they've got a solid core of their premiership squad still in place (with a bit more turnover given we're going back another 1-3 years). And they've supplemented it with picks like Adcock, Dummond, Roe, Stiller - who've all become good (or very very good) players but were available to all. They didn't get them from trading core members of their squad.

I see no reason why a similar path can't work at the Swans - though admittedly the immediate response hasn't indicated this is going to happen. There are two players who have been very solid contributors to the club's success who look like they are now worn out and aren't going to get any quicker. And one more who should still have plenty of footy in him but may need another club (with a younger, softer midfield) to flourish. I don't need to name names because everyone knows who they are. The first two may yet decide to call it a day. Trading the third would be a decisive move that ain't going to happen.

Mostly, though, the coaches need to find the confidence to play the youngsters and really get them involved. We have players chosen from similarly modest parts of the draft as Roe, Adcock, Pearce and Westhoff who I suspect are capable of making similar impacts at our club if they are backed to do so. I realise one player doesn't prove the point but two super games (and two more that haven't been so good but have still included lots of run, chase, tackle and the occasional sublime pass) from Barlow have been a revelation. I am convinced that, at the very least, Jack and Laidlaw are capable of the same.

[Sanecow]

That's all well and good, and I'm not arguing that, but IIRC this is the first time since the 1930's that we have played in the finals for 5 years in a row.

Being happy about making the finals five years in a row based on the fact that we have sucked since the Depression doesn't work for me. Aiming for the finals and being satisfied with making it is embracing mediocrity.

[Layby]

I think you need to embrace 'the journey' more

[NMWBloods]

That's all well and good, and I'm not arguing that, but IIRC this is the first time since the 1930's that we have played in the finals for 5 years in a row.

So why would other teams envy that 70-year wait?

[NMWBloods]

I think some moderate turnover of the list is in order but my reading of the Port model is that you don't need to cut particularly deep to rebuild.

No, but only half the side from the 2004 flag is left and it is generally the younger half. All the players, but two, from our 2005 flag side are still in the side.

[SimonH]

No, but only half the side from the 2004 flag is left and it is generally the younger half. All the players, but two, from our 2005 flag side are still in the side.

Port won their flag with a lot of 'top age' players who were going to go in the next couple of years one way or t'other. Matthew Bishop 29 at the time, Damien Hardwick 32, Roger James a month off 29 (and, it turned out, with no knees left), Adam Kingsley 29, Brett Montgomery 31, Jarrad Schofield 29, Darryl Wakelin 30, Gavin Wanganeen 31 (plus Matt Primus, 29, who was out injured). That's a pretty Dad's army-esque team.

With the exception of Ball and Williams, the Sydney 2005 side doesn't compare.

There's no doubt that Port have bounced back amazingly hard, and quickly. And there's also no doubt that they've done it by promoting rookies and uncovering other little-coveted talent in the mid-to-back end of the draft. Plus a relatively small amount of judicious trading involving mature players (Josh Carr and Byron Pickett going out, and Shannon Motlop and Nathan Lonie coming in, are about all that occur to me). They haven't done it through relying on genius children coming from the top of the draft to save them. That's exactly what Sydney will need to keep doing if we're to stay in the hunt in 2010 and beyond.

[NMWBloods]

It does compare in that Port now has a lot of young players and few old ones, while we have a lot around 30, who are now tired and slow.

[Wazza]

This is starting to sound similar to the reasons everyone wanted Eade to leave - stuck with the same players, didnt introduce and develop youth, inflexible game plan.....BUT Roos has 1 flag and 2 GF's.

This will be controversial -IMHO the key players in the Roos era were developed in the Eade era, at the stage the players were at it is more likely the fresh coach/ideas and game plan had more an impact rather than developing them as better players.

What will Roos leave for the next coach after 5 or whatever years? Malceski, Barlow, who has really come on as a player under Roos? -
Definately Kirk is probably the main one due to Roos having confidence in him but hard to nominate others who really improved significantly.

Cheers

waz

[NMWBloods]

This is starting to sound similar to the reasons everyone wanted Eade to leave - stuck with the same players, didnt introduce and develop youth, inflexible game plan.....BUT Roos has 1 flag and 2 GF's.

And the difference between Eade and Roos is 1 second!

This will be controversial -IMHO the key players in the Roos era were developed in the Eade era, at the stage the players were at it is more likely the fresh coach/ideas and game plan had more an impact rather than developing them as better players.

What will Roos leave for the next coach after 5 or whatever years? Malceski, Barlow, who has really come on as a player under Roos? -
Definately Kirk is probably the main one due to Roos having confidence in him but hard to nominate others who really improved significantly.

Fosdike and Goodes improved greatly under Roos.

[hammo]

Under Roos we have definitely relied more on trades and rookie promotions than draft picks which is understandable given our position in the premiership cycle.

However it is also a bit worrying that our good strike rate with low picks such as Goodes & O'Keefe has recently dried up. Malceski is the obvious exception.