gotta agree list management and this bloke just dont go.
makes you wonder just how objective he is.
we have addressed very little if he thinks we have addressed positional needs he is deluded. i have to ask myself does he even have a model he works to and does he even assess the players we do have.
i can see 5 different types we need in varying numbers.
1/ kpds depending on utilities and where they end up as many as two. post,rance, chaplin, grimes is not adequate numbers.
2/ ruckmen we need two ruckmen especially if vickery is going to play as a kpf cant he see we rob peter to pay paul.derickx is a for/ruck as well who has done little at 25 we need an immediate backup for maric and we need a genuine rruckman to develop.
3/ we have just 2 genuine med forwards we could do with another.
4/ kpfs depending on those utilities again as many as 2 as few as 1. riewoldt, elton, vickery who is to be a ruck/for is it. its adequate if griffiths and astbury are developed as forwards but still one short.
5/ 4 mids both inside and out outside pace and skill we really lack in. tuck is 31 and foley hardly ever on the park we need to cover for them.
we are just average joe blos posting on the internet but most of us can see the holes in the list why cant the bloke who is supposed to maintain the list and balance it out.
6 freakin yrs this blokes been in the role and he still cant get it right.
do we do reviews of the footy dept obviously not.
You just complained about list balance but then say we need more of every position except HBF's? I reckon he addressed positional needs in a sense he now has the bare minimum numbers required. Now it's all about depth.
P.S i don't reckon we need anymore medium forwards. Only need one permanent one and just other midfielders who can play forward to rotate through
and thats the point of the complaint. when craig cameron says we have addressed positional needs in fa hes wrong.we have needs in most areas and none have been addressed or fixed.
we all need to look past the starting 22.
if he thinks we have addressed kpd stocks he is very wrong. even with chaplain and we all allow both griffiths and astbury are defenders we dont have the required numbers.
if griffiths and astbury are defenders where does that leave our forward stocks. the word for it is dire.
it is simple allow
16 talls of which you have 4 ruckmen 6 kpds 6 kpfs and you have a mirror image of most teams structure. your talls take up 7 or 8 spots in your team. you field 2 teams 2 x 8 is 16.
if the talls take up 8 spots in a 22 it leaves 14 spots for mids / flankers in your team. field two teams 2 x 14 is 28. the balance of mids to flankers can vary depending on many factors.
combine them and you have 16 + 28 = 44 it leaves you with 4 spares in a list of 48 to do with as you please.
it is a workable common sense model.
as i said in my post i have to wonder if cameron has ever worked to a model. and i really have to question if he does independent assesments of our players. the constant resigning of ordinary players with longish contacts would suggest not.
just on hbfers.
i didnt include them because we have
newman 30yo, houli 24yo, morris 23yo, batchelor 21 yo, dea 21 yo, ellis 19 yo, plus we have the likes of deledio 25yo and conca 20 yo more than capable of playing back there. it is not a critical area has a decent spread of experience and age groups. it caters to both injury and long term development.
all sides play 3 hbf of varying sizes in their 22 we do as well the simple process is to mirror your 22 and have two of every position. with newman nearing the end and ellis conca deledio being primarily mids id say we can do with one more.
