Roos kicks off 2009 with a twin spin

[Number 43]

Is that a good thing?

I would have thought that it would be embarassing to any team to be so short of depth that you are forced to play immature youngsters in round 1 . . . and it smacks of desperation.

The Swans softly-softly approach with youngsters makes much more sense - give them time to mature and introduce them gradually, and only when they've shown enough to deserve a shot at the big time.

Throwing 3 or 4 untried youngsters into the team in round 1 would be suicidal for the team, and probably for the youngsters involved . . . and for what? To make the team more "interesting"??

This is obviously their approach and I don't know why people think it's ever going to be any different with Roos in charge. He has a philosophy of bring ing the kids in slowly and believes that only a handful of new draft picks are ready for seniors in their first season. None of them play for us obviously. (Rich, Ziebel, Hurley etc) Craig Bird is probably the exception but even he had time in the reserves. When we get another number 1 draft pick that's when we'll probably see them round 1 the following year. I'm happy to leave it up to Roosy. I reckon he knows more about it than any of us.

[ernie koala]

Throwing 3 or 4 untried youngsters into the team in round 1 would be suicidal for the team, and probably for the youngsters involved . . . and for what? To make the team more "interesting"??

4 debutants for Carlton last night. With Walker, and a few other reasonable tried players, left out. Yes it was against Richmond but it was hardly suicidal. If that had been our 4 debutants from the swans playing the way they did. All and sundry would be thrilled and full of hope looking forward to the rounds ahead with they're "interesting new team".
Robinson was pick 40 in last years draft, he's still a skinny kid. One game doesn't make a champion but he showed he's got something. You don't find that out if you leave them all languishing down in the ACT.

[satchmopugdog]

[QUOTE=ernie koala;430385],
Robinson was pick 40 in last years draft,.....he showed he's got something. QUOTE]

I'm fairly certain it's ADD but there are people on this board who know better than I..cousin wise

[chammond]

4 debutants for Carlton last night. With Walker, and a few other reasonable tried players, left out. Yes it was against Richmond but it was hardly suicidal. If that had been our 4 debutants from the swans playing the way they did. All and sundry would be thrilled and full of hope looking forward to the rounds ahead with they're "interesting new team".
Robinson was pick 40 in last years draft, he's still a skinny kid. One game doesn't make a champion but he showed he's got something. You don't find that out if you leave them all languishing down in the ACT.

Carlton have a long history of throwing their youngsters to the wolves, and it hasn't done them much good in the long run. As far as I can see, playing pick 40 from last year's draft - a skinny kid - in round 1 could only be a good thing for a coach who knows that the knives are out.

[chammond]

In the case of the Swans, Roos cast his hand fairly early in the pre-season when, after the NAB Cup game, he reverted to a relatively mature squad for the rest of the matches. Barlow, Vez and White were the three he seemingly identified as non-regulars from last year who he saw as integral parts of the senior team early in the season. White is in, we know why Vez isn't, and it is impossible to tell whether they would have played Barlow had it not been for the foot problem he's had for the last week or so.

I saw one TV game and one "live" game in the pre-season, and my impression was that only Barlow and White were ready to play seniors. Vezpremi and Schmidt would be in the best 22 if they could get fit. Laidlaw looked very close, and Mike Pyke will play soon, regardless of the sneers from the "experts".

Meredith, O'Dwyer and Smith can obviously play, but to suggest that they are better than Ablett or Buchanan at this stage would be going too far, I think. As far as Thornton and Brabazon are concerned, I've never seen anything that convinces me they will make AFL players.

The Swans conservative approach to blooding youngsters has been around for sometime now . . . both Eade and Roos have been cautious, and from memory it was similar in the Barassi/Drum era. There's evidence both ways: O'Loughlin, McVeigh and Bird all seem to have thrived on early inclusion, whilst Ablett, Kirk, Buchanan, Craig Bolton, Crouch, Moore, Malceski, O'Keefe, and even Goodes have all kicked-on after being "held back" by varying degrees and for various reasons.

I guess I see the bottom line being that playing youngsters just for the sake of it is just plain silly, but holding them back for too long, especially in the ACT comp, would be morale-sapping at least. Fortunately both Eade and Roos seem to have the happy knack of knowing the right time (most of the time).

[liz]

IThe Swans conservative approach to blooding youngsters has been around for sometime now . . . both Eade and Roos have been cautious, and from memory it was similar in the Barassi/Drum era. There's evidence both ways: O'Loughlin, McVeigh and Bird all seem to have thrived on early inclusion, whilst Ablett, Kirk, Buchanan, Craig Bolton, Crouch, Moore, Malceski, O'Keefe, and even Goodes have all kicked-on after being "held back" by varying degrees and for various reasons.

Straying away from the point of this thread, I know, but I don't see a clear distinction between the two groups of players you've highlighted.

For instance, McVeigh and Goodes both spent their first years on the list in the magoos, and then have been almost constants since. In fact, McVeigh has had stints back in reserves since his debut, while Goodes has yet to be dropped.

Moore was one of the few players in the Roos era to debut in his first season on the list. He might have been "held back" a bit in 2007 but it is a combination of niggling injuries (like a badly injured hand) at the wrong time, and a struggle to build up his endurance that held him back.

Crouch and Malceski almost certainly had their debuts postponed more due to injury than anything else. Certainly, Malceski didn't seem close to debuting in his first year as a very skinny lad, but there was talk in the pre-season of his second year that he would get to play senior footy pretty soon - until he did his knee.

As to your comment on Brabazon and Thornton, I agree on the former but not the latter. He may run out of time before he gets a chance, but in the pre-season game against Port last year he was just about best-on-ground until a few minutes before the half-time siren when his knee lost out in a contest. He's not flashy but he's a pretty neat player and I reckon he could make a decent fist of senior footy.

[SimonH]

All this talk of round 1 debutants makes me think: Lewis Johnston.

For those who say, 'he's miles off, we'd be insane', it's not just desperate and lowly sides who do it. Ryan Schoenmakers is a similar sort of player to Johnston, selected a few picks below J in the draft. He made his debut for the reigning premiers tonight. Albeit the Hawks have the luxury of enough top-drawer forwards, that they could use him as a utility rather than a forward target.

Still, it's not like they were forced to pick him because they don't have 22 decent fit players on their list.

I agree with everybody. On the one hand, the Swans' conservative approach to debuting, has never stopped anyone who had the talent and drive to make it (little Willo, sadly, was never going to be an AFL star no matter which team drafted him); and doing more of youngsters' apprenticeship in the 2s rather than the 1s keeps the team more competitive. On the other, sensible list management means, every now and then, you have to do something wacky like pick a skinny 18 year old and give him a real decent go.

[ScottH]

4 debutants for Carlton last night. With Walker, and a few other reasonable tried players, left out. Yes it was against Richmond but it was hardly suicidal. If that had been our 4 debutants from the swans playing the way they did. All and sundry would be thrilled and full of hope looking forward to the rounds ahead with they're "interesting new team".
Robinson was pick 40 in last years draft, he's still a skinny kid. One game doesn't make a champion but he showed he's got something. You don't find that out if you leave them all languishing down in the ACT.

Not sure about the others, but I'm pretty sure Walker is injured, or has been, so he wasn't left out.

[Nico]

Not sure about the others, but I'm pretty sure Walker is injured, or has been, so he wasn't left out.

Walker was named as an emergency.

It appears to me that aboriginals are far more ready to play as 18 year olds.

[chammond]

Straying away from the point of this thread, I know, but I don't see a clear distinction between the two groups of players you've highlighted.

I guess that is the point I was working towards - not very effectively

The decision to promote or not promote varies for each individual player, based on a number of variables, and having a golden rule for introducing youngsters to the seniors is as naive as a so-called yoof policy.

Crouch is a perfect example. I remember Eade saying that Crouch spent so long in the reserves because he simply didn't stand out of the crowd. Even when he got his chance, it was more a case of giving him a run because he'd been a first round draft pick. Then he went on to play 999 games in a row. Was his durability down to his physical and mental maturity from being held back? Or could he have played 10,000 games in a row if he'd been promoted 2 or 3 seasons earlier?