Future list and depth analysis

[707]

Got to thinking about this last week when we brought in two emergencies who had almost no impact (that I could see) between them. I have been concerned for a couple of seasons about our depth although some on here are quite bullish. I think last week shows we have a depth problem.

Here is a list I quickly compiled ranking the top half of our list based loosely on importance to the team and shown ability at AFL level. Also shows what age the 30+ players will turn next year so we can see what replacements we'll need in what positions within 2-3 years.

In ranking them I've assumed we play one ruckman, three genuine tall backs, not Rampe type can play tall, and two tall forwards. Don't get too bothered about where on the list players are until you get into the early 20s as this is where we start to get a fall off in genuine AFL standard, this is the whipping boy area of the team, it's the area that separates contenders from also rans, the area that has you still winning when you've got a few injuries, if these players are good enough. We need to find a few more players or hope that young untried players like Dawson, O'Riordan etc really progress. I think Hayward in particular and Florent to a lesser extent have shown class at senior level whilst still physically immature as first year players.

Don't think I've missed anyone?

1. JPK, turns 30 next year
2. Buddy, 31 next year and half way through his contract!
3. Rampe
4. Parker
5. Hanneberry
6. Lloyd
7. Heeney
8. Mills
9. Reid, needs to re-sign still
10. Jones
11. Grundy, 32 and currently still at the top of his game
12. McVeigh, 33 and club undecided about another year but is showing he's important
13. K Jack 31
14. Papley
15. Naismith
16. Newman
17. Rohan
18. Smith, 30
19. Aliir
20. Melican
21. Hewett
22. Towers?
23. Cunningham?
24. Hayward still only 18 but looks highly promising
25. Florent time to prove he belongs
26. Dawson? the great hope!
27. Robinson? unconvinced

[Southern Swan15]

I think our depth is as good as can expected given the results our side has had over the last 10 years. I feel our emergencies last week were not who we would had chosen of the outs were known at selection time.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[liz]

It's almost impossible for a club to maintain significant, experienced depth. Players who are good enough to be in the best 22 of a team but who can't break in will generally look elsewhere for an opportunity (see Nankervis, Membrey for two recent examples). Most clubs will have one or two younger players who can make some kind of contribution at senior level in their first year while they develop physically, but these will generally progress into the "best 22" by their second or third year.

So then you need a few types like Laidler/Sinclair/Marsh (maybe), who probably aren't quite good enough to be best 22 at any club but who aren't bad when you need to call on them. And a lot of developing youngsters who are going to take more than a couple of years before they're ready, and most of whom will never be good enough.

Two of the three I've named aren't even on your list, but they're decent depth players. (Actually, all three aren't, but that's because you've omitted all our ruckmen for some reason). And all three plus Tippett (noting that - fit - Tippett and Sinclair can play as forwards and thus provide depth if/when Reid and Buddy are injured/suspended) and you're up to 31 players who can do OK at senior level. No, they're not all stars but you can't afford a list full of stars. I reckon that's as long as list as most clubs can boast, and as long as most clubs can sustain too.

[Ludwig]

I agree with the above post from liz. That aside, I think we have quite a good number of promising prospects at the club.

Harry Marsh and Laidler are both very capable senior players. Laidler may eventually get squeezed out to open a draft spot, but I think Marsh will stay, although will continue to struggle to hold down a regular spot. I guess that's what a depth player is.

From previous year players, I rate Colin O'Riordan as a near certainty to make it in the AFL. Murray is developing well and if he can continue at this rate could be in the mix for a senior call in the next couple of years. Rose has definitely got some talent, but hasn't shown the consistency required at AFL level, especially his defensive work. But he's got another year on his contract, so maybe he can fix that part of his game.

It's hard to say what will be with Talia. I think he's played solidly enough, but with the emergence of Melican and the return of AJ, it's hard to know if he will remain on our list. I had him pegged to take over for Reg, and still think he could be a good choice in that regard, but there's a lot of competition in KPDs now. I suppose he would be a good depth player if he remains on the list.

I like the entire crop of drafted players from last year and all are still in with a chance to stay on for another season. Darcy Cameron looks very promising as a forward/ruck. He's like a Callum Sinclair, except he's a much better mark and kick for goal and is also a better ruckman.

At this early stage, I would rate Sam Fisher the best of the rookie prospects and think he will become an AFL player.

Fox has already played a couple of games and has looked okay. Now injured and seems out for the season.

Shaun Edwards looks a good pick up and adds some depth if nothing else. He's been close to a senior call up several times this year.

Ben Ronke had a late start and is another one who has shown very good early signs. It'd put him just behind Fisher in ranking their prospects.

Toby Pink has probably just done enough to hang on for another year. He's performed well at times, but has lots of things to work on. He would probably be delisted, except it's worth giving more time to KPPs, as they are hard to come by. A versatile player who can play forward, back and in the ruck.

[barry]

I wonder if Gary Ablett retires from football (if he can't get a trade to Geelong) whether GC will be required to include his salary in their cap for the remainder of his contact (3 years?).?

If not then we have a precedent, an out, if buddy''s body doesn't hold up.

[goswannies]

I wonder if Gary Ablett retires from football (if he can't get a trade to Geelong) whether GC will be required to include his salary in their cap for the remainder of his contact (3 years?).?

If not then we have a precedent, an out, if buddy''s body doesn't hold up.

No it isn't. The AFL made it very clear that regardless of how long Buddy played (either 9 years or 1 year) his salary must remain as part of our cap (regardless of whether we actually pay him or not). The board signed off on it. We were committed.

[Mug Punter]

Sinclair plus Marsh and Laidler bring the number up to 30 serviceable senior players which I think is quite good depth

[KTigers]

Buddy wanted to move to Sydney to be with his girlfriend (now wife). It's a fairly common thing, to want to be near
your partner in life. Lots of people do it. If he had wanted to play for GWS, he would be. It's like these facts are completely lost on the AFL.

No it isn't. The AFL made it very clear that regardless of how long Buddy played (either 9 years or 1 year) his salary must remain as part of our cap (regardless of whether we actually pay him or not). The board signed off on it. We were committed.

[goswannies]

Buddy wanted to move to Sydney to be with his girlfriend (now wife). It's a fairly common thing, to want to be near
your partner in life. Lots of people do it. If he had wanted to play for GWS, he would be. It's like these facts are completely lost on the AFL.

I don't disagree. Buddy's motives on moving to Sydney were multi-factorial (be with Jacinta, get away from the Melbourne fishbowl, footy success, $$$ probably many more).

What the AFL said was "we know you're proposing a super deal to ge Buddy, fine but know that you are stuck with it" ie Buddy might see out his 9 year contract & won 9 premierships or do knee in his first year and retire. We aren't obliged to pay the $10M if he quits early, but we are obliged to sacrifice his salary in our cap space. That is our commitment.

They are 2 separate issues (his reasons for coming, and the cost to the Swans).

[Mug Punter]

I don't disagree. Buddy's motives on moving to Sydney were multi-factorial (be with Jacinta, get away from the Melbourne fishbowl, footy success, $$$ probably many more).

What the AFL said was "we know you're proposing a super deal to ge Buddy, fine but know that you are stuck with it" ie Buddy might see out his 9 year contract & won 9 premierships or do knee in his first year and retire. We aren't obliged to pay the $10M if he quits early, but we are obliged to sacrifice his salary in our cap space. That is our commitment.

They are 2 separate issues (his reasons for coming, and the cost to the Swans).

There were also two other factors in the AFLs edict re Buddy's salary, one was the fact it was nine years with real doubt about his ability to see the duration and the other factor was the fact it was so seriously back-ended.

I know we all like to see AFL conspiracies on here whenever we can but given we adjusted (fiddled even) the length and weighting to suit our salary cap I think the AFL were quite right to insist that we couldn't pay him out after a number of years and not have the balance of the deal.

Somewhat draconian but not unfair

[Markwebbos]

I thought it was also because Buddy was a restricted free agent and we offered a 9 year deal Hawthorn weren't prepared to match.

[Mr Magoo]

There were also two other factors in the AFLs edict re Buddy's salary, one was the fact it was nine years with real doubt about his ability to see the duration and the other factor was the fact it was so seriously back-ended.

I know we all like to see AFL conspiracies on here whenever we can but given we adjusted (fiddled even) the length and weighting to suit our salary cap I think the AFL were quite right to insist that we couldn't pay him out after a number of years and not have the balance of the deal.

Somewhat draconian but not unfair

I think the unfairness can be taken out if the rule was that ANY club that signs a player for say five years or longer is stuck with the same situation. The unfair bit is that it is levied on one situation because of who it was.

[Scottee]

I agree with the above post from liz. That aside, I think we have quite a good number of promising prospects at the club.

Harry Marsh and Laidler are both very capable senior players. Laidler may eventually get squeezed out to open a draft spot, but I think Marsh will stay, although will continue to struggle to hold down a regular spot. I guess that's what a depth player is.

From previous year players, I rate Colin O'Riordan as a near certainty to make it in the AFL. Murray is developing well and if he can continue at this rate could be in the mix for a senior call in the next couple of years. Rose has definitely got some talent, but hasn't shown the consistency required at AFL level, especially his defensive work. But he's got another year on his contract, so maybe he can fix that part of his game.

It's hard to say what will be with Talia. I think he's played solidly enough, but with the emergence of Melican and the return of AJ, it's hard to know if he will remain on our list. I had him pegged to take over for Reg, and still think he could be a good choice in that regard, but there's a lot of competition in KPDs now. I suppose he would be a good depth player if he remains on the list.

I like the entire crop of drafted players from last year and all are still in with a chance to stay on for another season. Darcy Cameron looks very promising as a forward/ruck. He's like a Callum Sinclair, except he's a much better mark and kick for goal and is also a better ruckman.

At this early stage, I would rate Sam Fisher the best of the rookie prospects and think he will become an AFL player.

Fox has already played a couple of games and has looked okay. Now injured and seems out for the season.

Shaun Edwards looks a good pick up and adds some depth if nothing else. He's been close to a senior call up several times this year.

Ben Ronke had a late start and is another one who has shown very good early signs. It'd put him just behind Fisher in ranking their prospects.

Toby Pink has probably just done enough to hang on for another year. He's performed well at times, but has lots of things to work on. He would probably be delisted, except it's worth giving more time to KPPs, as they are hard to come by. A versatile player who can play forward, back and in the ruck.

A agree with most of what you say Ludwig, but I would rank the Rookies with Murray at the top in terms of potential; beautiful kick, genuine pace and a largish mid, perfect winger or attacking hbf.

Toby Pink I also rank very highly, very young, relatively quick for a tall, plenty of footy smarts and good skills.I would put him on a similar trajectory to Melican but with potential as a forward.

O'Riordon I like, and he has developed good skills, but I wonder whether he has the pace to make it at senior level to avoid being caught on some of his attacking runs.

Fisher has potential, is young and a ball magnet, but I hope he can improve his kicking, which can be very inconsistent.

Shaun Edwards is a depth player who still may develop some improvement - line ball.

Fox proved a pretty good pick-up and a lot of confidence was shown by the coaches in putting in him in the seniors early on. A genuine inside mid with good acceleration and ability to read the play, probably a keeper.

Ronke seems a really smart and skilled young player but it is hard to judge where he is physically. After his injury struck start to the season, if he can be bigger and stronger and fitter he could make it.

However, in terms of needs, as Rookies we have 3 x HBF/Wingers in Edwards,O'Riordon,Murray; 3 x Midfielders in Fox, Fisher, Ronke; and only one KPP in Pink and NO ruckmen. So I think there will need to be some hard decisions made re the HBFs and I think Murray is ahead of Edwards & O'Riordon due to he potential. We need a ruck rookie and one more KPP in my opinion. As far as midfielders go Fox, Fisher and Ronke all probably deserve another go the coaches assessment of their potential, but that may depend on the other available talent and .

With regard to the senior list, Talia, BJ and Leonardis are certainties to be delisted (Talia has no chance with AJ, Aliir, Melican and Maibaum all in contention); with McVeigh a possibility to retire. It is hard to see others being delisted given current contract status but there may be trade potential, as you suggest, for Laidler and Marsh. Melican will also need to be upgraded to the senior list, so unless there is a trade or two, the room on the senior list is extremely limited, with only 2 or 3 draft spots available.So to get a reasonable turnover on the list the Rookie list will be closely examined with the potential available talent an important determining factor.

Overall, the senior list seems to be pretty healthy and capable, with one or two obvious exceptions who shall not be named. Overall there seems to be good potential for list improvement without too much trauma. A position a lot of clubs would envy.

[barry]

I think the unfairness can be taken out if the rule was that ANY club that signs a player for say five years or longer is stuck with the same situation. The unfair bit is that it is levied on one situation because of who it was.

The AFL made the rule to overcome a loop hole in their system. I think it could be challenged in court. The salary cap isn't exactly on strong legal footings at the best of times.

If buddy did retire early, could we bundle say the remaining 3 million in one year, or conversely spread it out over 10 years.?

[Mr Magoo]

Would be interesting when the next long term deal comes along - Josh Kelly to Norths on one million a year for seven is really no different. I agree that the current situation would seem easily challenged but the reality is that the clubs know that to do so would mean the whole system might come crashing down like a pack of cards and then we end up like soccer overseas where the same rich clubs are the only ones year after year in the running for a title.