Crawf advocates tanking to fix swans woes....

[Claret]

What is the reality?

||
||
\ /

Adelaide - rebuilding without dropping out of finals contention.

Geelong - had a year when they underperformed (but were still competitive in most games) before emerging as a powerhouse, the core of whose squad was recruited and reasonably seasoned before that bad year.

And then there is one club who won the minor premiership one year in the mid-90s, were strong contenders two years later (and might have done better than a SF had their best onballer - a Brownlow medallist - not succumbed to a season ending knee injury 2/3rds of the way through the seaosn). A club who, over a period spanning 13 completed seasons finished out of the top 8 only twice, whose highest earned draft pick during that period was number 7 (upgraded to 5 due to penalties handed to another club) and who nearly a decade after that first GF appearance won a premiership and came within a bees' youknowwhat of defending their title a year later.

Wonder who they could be.

And then, of course, you have clubs like Richmond who have spent most of the last couple of decades "rebuilding" and yet look set for yet another bottom 4 finish in 2009. Or Freo, who have spent practically their entire existence "rebuilding".

People are talking about the Geelong side as one of the best we've seen in the modern game. They dropped (or as Liz rightly puts it "underperformed") for one year and received pick 7(!!) in the draft.

Since that time they've lost 3 of their last 60 or so games.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this might be a smidge better than certain other sides that have been hording picks 1,1,1,2,3 etc.

[DST]

Tanking as a means of rebuilding is a flawed arguement and in reality (based on knwon results) way over rated.

Club culture, sound game plan, inovative coaching, smart recruiting and player development all play a far greater part in whether you are a succesful football club than just adding 10 first round draft picks to your list and
playing them all at once.

A smart football club can survive by picking up 3 kids a year across the whole draft if they get the above 5 things right.

There is nothing to say that taking into account what we have (including last years draft) and what we might get this year with 4 picks that we can't have a side by the start of 2011 year is not pushing for finals football again.

DST

[Lohengrin]

Of course a team WILL drop. You drop because you age, you don't get better because you drop. The AFL works in cycles, everybody knows that, but that doesn't mean you have to deliberately initiate a drop in order to do well later. It also doesn't mean you can't make the most of what you've got and try to lessen the drop as much as possible.

I didn't mention tanking. I said dropping was natural and needed, and part of that is cycling through the players to gradually replace the older players with the younger ones.

If you've got a good recruiting team, you should be able to rebuild without dropping too far. Look at Adelaide at the moment. They're doing very well on the back of some quality recruiting, without doing anything close to tanking. Yes, they obviously slid down the ladder after success, as the Swans are doing now. That doesn't mean we have to slide to the spoon.

I didn't say we did. I said a team needs to drop down the ladder, exactly as Adelaide did as you acknowledge.

[Rod_]

No tanking - many years ago we drafted Anthony Rocca and Shannon Grant - High draft selections. By the time they were any good they wanted to go home. Most of the young kids that we could select may stay a year or 3 but may want to go home after.

Whilst I can agree that a few lower selections have stayed it is a big risk to bottom out - get early draft selections. Train them up for them to leave...

One top 20 selections per year is ok with me. Get the right one...!

Rod_

[Lohengrin]

Adelaide - rebuilding without dropping out of finals contention.

Geelong - had a year when they underperformed (but were still competitive in most games) before emerging as a powerhouse, the core of whose squad was recruited and reasonably seasoned before that bad year.

And then there is one club...

Wonder who they could be.

Geelong finished outside finals 2000-2003 and in 2006. A lot of the premiership team was playing in 2004 - they were still developing.

Adelaide finished 12th in 2004.

Swans dropped back to 10th and 11th in 2000 and 2002, and barely scraped into finals in 1999 and 2001. So there was a drop. It happened to not be a big one, but it's still there, yet it is unusual. The ageing of the current list makes that difficult to repeat.

But in each case you see some sort of drop before a recovery, which was my point.

And then, of course, you have clubs like Richmond who have spent most of the last couple of decades "rebuilding" and yet look set for yet another bottom 4 finish in 2009. Or Freo, who have spent practically their entire existence "rebuilding".

You seem to saying that I have suggested we tank. I just said we need to have a period of slipping down the ladder which will happen naturally. You bring in an increasing number of younger players, which sees you win less games and how far you drop depends on how good they are and how effective the transition has been. There may be to be a decision to bring them in quicker, clear out the older players faster, which sees the team drop a bit further than otherwise but benefit from some better draft picks. That depends on the outlook on the current crop of youngsters.

[Claret]

I didn't say we did. I said a team needs to drop down the ladder, exactly as Adelaide did as you acknowledge.

When exactly have Adelaide dropped down the ladder?

Their first picks in the draft over the last 6 years . . .

2008 - Pick 10
2007 - Pick 10
2006 - Pick 14
2005 - Pick 16
2004 - Pick 8
2003 - Pick 14

... and I could go on.

The player they got with their highest pick after dropping down? John Meesen - he played 2 games with the Crows before being traded to the Demons for pick 37. He played his first (and only) game with Melbourne earlier this year but is now, I believe, on their long term injury list.

Sounds like a sound strategy to me.

[Lohengrin]

Adelaide finished 12th in 2006, so they did drop quite a bit.

In the past 15 years we've seen Essendon, Brisbane, Collingwood, StKilda, Western Bulldogs, West Coast, North, and Port drop after being up near the top, and the first five have done or are doing a decent job of rebuilding. I think it more likely to happen than not, and whether it is a major or a minor one depends on how well it is managed.

In that time we've only seen teams make finals more than four years in a row on six occasions (North, Brisbane, Essendon, West Coast, Port, Sydney) and for five of those the teams have experienced a period out of finals.

So all I'm suggesting is that it happens naturally during a rebuild. If it doesn't then good on us, but let's not be surprised or too disappointed if it does if it shows signs of leading to better outcomes in the future.

[Claret]

Adelaide finished 12th in 2006, so they did drop quite a bit.

Ummmm, that'd Adelaide of the Port variety.

They (Adelaide) finished 2nd in 2006 which, I concede, is a drop from being Monir Premiers in 2005.

[Lohengrin]

Ummmm, that'd Adelaide of the Port variety.

They (Adelaide) finished 2nd in 2006 which, I concede, is a drop from being Monir Premiers in 2005.

Don't be a smart arse - I looked at the wrong date - Adelaide finished 12th in 2004.

[Claret]

Don't be a smart arse - I looked at the wrong date - Adelaide finished 12th in 2004.

And received John Meesen for their troubles.

[T-bag]

Yawn!

[Lohengrin]

People are talking about the Geelong side as one of the best we've seen in the modern game. They dropped (or as Liz rightly puts it "underperformed") for one year and received pick 7(!!) in the draft.

Since that time they've lost 3 of their last 60 or so games.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this might be a smidge better than certain other sides that have been hording picks 1,1,1,2,3 etc.

In 2004 they had 18 players of their 2007 premiership team. In the six years prior to that they made finals just once.

[liz]

There is a difference between the fact that clubs' fortunes do tend to ebb and flow, and it is difficult to sustain excellence (ie top 4 or better) for year after year after year, and the contention that clubs need to drop down to rebuild.

There is often very little between the club who finishes in 12th and the club who finishes 5th or 6th in terms of competitiveness during the season. The difference in ladder position can be caused by a differential of just a couple of games, maybe a couple of close losses or a particularly bad injury run at some point in the year. Adelaide may have finished 12th in 2004 but the following season they were one of the very strongest clubs for much of the season and were unlucky (injury-wise) to miss the GF. A change of coach injected new vigour into essentially the same squad. In 2002, the Swans most recent "poor" year, we were still highly competitive on a week-to-week basis and in the run of losses that led to Eades' departure, lost many by barely a kick.

We are probably arguing about degrees of dropping. As I said above, I don't disagree that teams do find it hard to sustain the same level of competitiveness for an extended period, and in another thread last week, pointed out that the Swans' post premiership record compares pretty favourably with that of Port, the Lions and West Coast (and you could go back to Essendon too, or the Pies following their two GFs).

But that is a whole world away from Crawford's suggestion that the list needs to be started all over again (based, it seems, on him scanning the list and not recognising many of the names or knowing anything about half those players).

[CJK]

... Crawford ... scanning the list and not recognising many of the names or knowing anything about half those players

This.

[Lohengrin]

There is a difference between the fact that clubs' fortunes do tend to ebb and flow, and it is difficult to sustain excellence (ie top 4 or better) for year after year after year, and the contention that clubs need to drop down to rebuild.

"Need" was just a comment borne out of the evidence, that it happens far more than not.

We are probably arguing about degrees of dropping.

Yes.