Yeah or Neah - Matt Dea?

[the claw]

cmon smokey no ones saying its written in stone.
ive repeatedly said smls by 20, mediums by 22 talls by 24 as a loose guide. that is these types should click by that age but there are variables and other processes to go thru.

That's exactly what I'm saying Claw.

ffs i look at dea and say how old,  right 23 yrs old,  had 5 yrs should have clicked by now and been an established player. played just 31 games in those 5 yrs and only 10 in the last 2, why has he not clicked and why has he not established himself.

thee are no if or butts about it when you look at what hes done at the top lebvel it has been poor in anyones language.
i could live with giving him another yr if i could say to myself yep he will become a decent player. i cant say that and after 5 yrs for a player of his type its enough we should move on. now that is process.
we have a time line we set criteria we look at strengths weakness and performance  and make a call. matts had his chances time to give someone else a go id say.

That's just your opinion on the player and to be honest you are just as likely to be right than wrong.  Nothing to do with process because you (or me) don't have access to the 'real' data and info that is required to make the best valued judgement.

we fail as a club because believe it or not we hang onto far too many players just like matt dea and we have done it for yrs.  ffs we pay em to make calls on players its time they started to accept their responsibility make the calls or  f of out of the club.

Easy to judge the calls in hindsight.  I (often) don't always agree with them either but I don't think they are shirking their responsibility, just that they get it wrong every now and then .......... like most humans I know.

so do you agree its a reasonable loose guide and if you like starting point. they arent just numbers plucked out of the air they actuall correspond to what goes on in majority of cases.

smokestar im not sure what real data your on about.  i see the stats i see him play  i dont need much more to make a decent opinion. and yes
when you set out a time frame look at strengths weakness injury and performance it is a process and we should be judging players by these things and within certain timeframes.apply these things to all players and its a process. i do exactly that why cant the club. its like ticking boxes in a way.

also when they constantly fail to go thru proper processes we need to demand accountability. no hindsight with me smokey its a process and it is a constant one.

[big tone]

cmon smokey no ones saying its written in stone.
ive repeatedly said smls by 20, mediums by 22 talls by 24 as a loose guide. that is these types should click by that age but there are variables and other processes to go thru.

That's exactly what I'm saying Claw.

ffs i look at dea and say how old,  right 23 yrs old,  had 5 yrs should have clicked by now and been an established player. played just 31 games in those 5 yrs and only 10 in the last 2, why has he not clicked and why has he not established himself.

thee are no if or butts about it when you look at what hes done at the top lebvel it has been poor in anyones language.
i could live with giving him another yr if i could say to myself yep he will become a decent player. i cant say that and after 5 yrs for a player of his type its enough we should move on. now that is process.
we have a time line we set criteria we look at strengths weakness and performance  and make a call. matts had his chances time to give someone else a go id say.

That's just your opinion on the player and to be honest you are just as likely to be right than wrong.  Nothing to do with process because you (or me) don't have access to the 'real' data and info that is required to make the best valued judgement.

we fail as a club because believe it or not we hang onto far too many players just like matt dea and we have done it for yrs.  ffs we pay em to make calls on players its time they started to accept their responsibility make the calls or  f of out of the club.

Easy to judge the calls in hindsight.  I (often) don't always agree with them either but I don't think they are shirking their responsibility, just that they get it wrong every now and then .......... like most humans I know.

so do you agree its a reasonable loose guide and if you like starting point. they arent just numbers plucked out of the air they actuall correspond to what goes on in majority of cases.

smokestar im not sure what real data your on about.  i see the stats i see him play  i dont need much more to make a decent opinion. and yes
when you set out a time frame look at strengths weakness injury and performance it is a process and we should be judging players by these things and within certain timeframes.apply these things to all players and its a process. i do exactly that why cant the club. its like ticking boxes in a way.

also when they constantly fail to go thru proper processes we need to demand accountability. no hindsight with me smokey its a process and it is a constant one.

Your 'process' got Rance wrong, spin whatever crap you want, you got him wrong. You are doing the same with Matty Dea.
Picking talent in footballers is not about ages or time frames or kicks to advantage, sometimes it's about what you see in a player, if you have an eye for it!
Some take longer than others and some end up better than others, it's not a exact science. Have you ever just seen a player play and say this kid will make it from only a couple of pieces of play? And I'm not talking about the Judd, Selwood types, I'm talking about the kids that have come from a long way back.
Matty Dea is that for me.
I agree 5 years is too long for a normal kid from TAC that plays Matty's roll but when you choose to pick a bloke as a development player you have to be a bit more patient. The upside is worth it when/if it pays off.

[Smokey]

so do you agree its a reasonable loose guide and if you like starting point. they arent just numbers plucked out of the air they actuall correspond to what goes on in majority of cases.

Yes I do Claw but I would never base a decision on it.  Use it to guide me initially, yes, but that's as far as it goes.

smokestar im not sure what real data your on about.  i see the stats i see him play  i dont need much more to make a decent opinion. and yes
when you set out a time frame look at strengths weakness injury and performance it is a process and we should be judging players by these things and within certain timeframes.apply these things to all players and its a process. i do exactly that why cant the club. its like ticking boxes in a way.

By real data I mean what role the club has envisaged for him, what's instructions they have given him, what development traits they have told him to concentrate on over any given period, what KPI's they have set for him.  All the things that you and I as interested, knowledgeable, experienced but ultimately ignorant outsiders would have no clue about.

also when they constantly fail to go thru proper processes we need to demand accountability. no hindsight with me smokey its a process and it is a constant one.

A process is fine and the best way but it is only truly effective when armed with all the facts.  You and I aren't.

[yellowandback]

My pleasure 

And if you overly complicate the process you do so to your own likely detriment. The world over is filled with intellectuals who cant execute their theory Smokey, I'm sure you can see that.

 

If I thought what I believed was over-complicating the process then I would be doing this     but I don't so I won't.      

It's all relative Smoke - remember we are talking AFL but all good.
Out of interest, apart from being given a good run(and he was given 7 games in a row this year so whether punters like it or not that's a decent run of consecutive games to convince the experts on the match committee) what are you looking for from him to cement his spot in the side in 2015?
Also, given he turns 24 next year how much longer would you give him on the primary list if he doesn't make it next year?

[Smokey]

I would only give him 1 more year because like you said he has had a bit of a go already but I'm just not convinced yet that he can't become a good ordinary player, a depth player that would be a definite improvement on Newman or Batchelor and free Vlastuin up for more midfield time.  With all these fringe types that are on the cusp of keep or delist, my method would have been at 3-10 to give these guys a guaranteed run of 6-7 games minimum in their best position and let them have a fair dinkum crack without the fear of being dropped for one bad game or decision.  Take some pressure off them by telling them they won't be dropped regardless and they have multiple games to show what they've got.  I've seen it work in other grades and sports before and I'm convinced it has a place in this circumstance.  Getting those 9 wins in a row was great in a short term emotional way but long term I would much rather have finished 11-12 and found out more definitive information on the fringe players than make the 8 and embarrass ourselves like we did.

[The Machine]

It looks unlikely that Matt will hold down a regular spot in the back 6 so, I think we should try his as our run with player. Has the size, is accomplished 1 vs 1, is actually very good with his hands in tight and has ok speed. Can he be our Macaffer, Crowley or Langford? Given a chance to train in this role over the break he could have a clear direction and make this spot his own. As a team we need this position filled and filled fast.

[Judge Roughneck]

It looks unlikely that Matt will hold down a regular spot in the back 6 so, I think we should try his as our run with player. Has the size, is accomplished 1 vs 1, is actually very good with his hands in tight and has ok speed. Can he be our Macaffer, Crowley or Langford? Given a chance to train in this role over the break he could have a clear direction and make this spot his own. As a team we need this position filled and filled fast.

Not much worse than priddis 

[yellowandback]

It looks unlikely that Matt will hold down a regular spot in the back 6 so, I think we should try his as our run with player. Has the size, is accomplished 1 vs 1, is actually very good with his hands in tight and has ok speed. Can he be our Macaffer, Crowley or Langford? Given a chance to train in this role over the break he could have a clear direction and make this spot his own. As a team we need this position filled and filled fast.

If he can become an elite runner then it's a better option that what we've been trying for the past 5 years.

[Penelope]

while im not big on pure taggers or stoppers or whatever you want to call them, it would be worth a shot giving him a couple of shut down roles through the middle of the ground or even across half forward.

the problem is, though, he wasnt drafted as a tagger. we would be better off de listing him and drafting a pure tagger.

[Yeahright]

It looks unlikely that Matt will hold down a regular spot in the back 6 so, I think we should try his as our run with player. Has the size, is accomplished 1 vs 1, is actually very good with his hands in tight and has ok speed. Can he be our Macaffer, Crowley or Langford? Given a chance to train in this role over the break he could have a clear direction and make this spot his own. As a team we need this position filled and filled fast.

What's his tank like? I agree it would be worth a go as he's pretty sound defensively and has good athleticism so if he was to follow a player into their forward line (like a lot of players try when getting beat) you could back him in.

while im not big on pure taggers or stoppers or whatever you want to call them, it would be worth a shot giving him a couple of shut down roles through the middle of the ground or even across half forward.

the problem is, though, he wasnt drafted as a tagger. we would be better off de listing him and drafting a pure tagger.

I don't think anyone is drafted as a pure tagger are they? I know Crowley and Macaffer weren't. FWIW I think we need a pure stopper, sick of the oppositions best players destroying us.

[DCrane]

I would only give him 1 more year because like you said he has had a bit of a go already but I'm just not convinced yet that he can't become a good ordinary player, a depth player that would be a definite improvement on Newman or Batchelor and free Vlastuin up for more midfield time.  With all these fringe types that are on the cusp of keep or delist, my method would have been at 3-10 to give these guys a guaranteed run of 6-7 games minimum in their best position and let them have a fair dinkum crack without the fear of being dropped for one bad game or decision.  Take some pressure off them by telling them they won't be dropped regardless and they have multiple games to show what they've got.  I've seen it work in other grades and sports before and I'm convinced it has a place in this circumstance.  Getting those 9 wins in a row was great in a short term emotional way but long term I would much rather have finished 11-12 and found out more definitive information on the fringe players than make the 8 and embarrass ourselves like we did.

Great post. I agree 100% about the Dea comments, agree with your thoughts on season 2014 also Smoke. The evidence on this is Griffiths, for once he had a guaranteed block of 4 games and ended up keeping Vickery, a walk up start, out of the side, and Gordon, who got given a block and while he didn't set the world on fire, has done enough to warrant further consideration as a HFF.

[the claw]

cmon smokey no ones saying its written in stone.
ive repeatedly said smls by 20, mediums by 22 talls by 24 as a loose guide. that is these types should click by that age but there are variables and other processes to go thru.

That's exactly what I'm saying Claw.

ffs i look at dea and say how old,  right 23 yrs old,  had 5 yrs should have clicked by now and been an established player. played just 31 games in those 5 yrs and only 10 in the last 2, why has he not clicked and why has he not established himself.

thee are no if or butts about it when you look at what hes done at the top lebvel it has been poor in anyones language.
i could live with giving him another yr if i could say to myself yep he will become a decent player. i cant say that and after 5 yrs for a player of his type its enough we should move on. now that is process.
we have a time line we set criteria we look at strengths weakness and performance  and make a call. matts had his chances time to give someone else a go id say.

That's just your opinion on the player and to be honest you are just as likely to be right than wrong.  Nothing to do with process because you (or me) don't have access to the 'real' data and info that is required to make the best valued judgement.

we fail as a club because believe it or not we hang onto far too many players just like matt dea and we have done it for yrs.  ffs we pay em to make calls on players its time they started to accept their responsibility make the calls or  f of out of the club.

Easy to judge the calls in hindsight.  I (often) don't always agree with them either but I don't think they are shirking their responsibility, just that they get it wrong every now and then .......... like most humans I know.

so do you agree its a reasonable loose guide and if you like starting point. they arent just numbers plucked out of the air they actuall correspond to what goes on in majority of cases.

smokestar im not sure what real data your on about.  i see the stats i see him play  i dont need much more to make a decent opinion. and yes
when you set out a time frame look at strengths weakness injury and performance it is a process and we should be judging players by these things and within certain timeframes.apply these things to all players and its a process. i do exactly that why cant the club. its like ticking boxes in a way.

also when they constantly fail to go thru proper processes we need to demand accountability. no hindsight with me smokey its a process and it is a constant one.

Your 'process' got Rance wrong, spin whatever crap you want, you got him wrong. You are doing the same with Matty Dea.
Picking talent in footballers is not about ages or time frames or kicks to advantage, sometimes it's about what you see in a player, if you have an eye for it!
Some take longer than others and some end up better than others, it's not a exact science. Have you ever just seen a player play and say this kid will make it from only a couple of pieces of play? And I'm not talking about the Judd, Selwood types, I'm talking about the kids that have come from a long way back.
Matty Dea is that for me.
I agree 5 years is too long for a normal kid from TAC that plays Matty's roll but when you choose to pick a bloke as a development player you have to be a bit more patient. The upside is worth it when/if it pays off.

oh dear please tell what did i get wrong with rance. and with rance unlike dea i have never ever called for him to be delisted. i have continually argued his role and his many deficirencies. which i am big enough to admit have improved enormously. it doesnt pay to criticise around here people just dont forgive.imo i havent got too much wrong with rance as each yr has unfolded.mate im moere than happy to stand by just about everything i have said about the bloke.

but  ffs where do you get off comparing dea with rance. there is no comparison between the two. matt gea has had 5 yrs and not done a thing.unlike rance who has always done some thing well but had plenty to work on.
dea has had just 31 games in 5 yrs. and stats that read like something i ccould muster up if given a go.. but your right its not just stats its what you see,  how often have i had that debate.

heres one for ya entering yr 6 can you categorically say he will make it. development player or not hes had a shedload of time and theres been so little return on our investment.

the touble is if he has another yr lije this you will be saying give him one more geez hes close i see good glimpses.sorry hes past the stage of being kept on good glimpses.he was past that stage two yrs ago.
ffs tone we have lists of just 42 5 yrs is an eternity for a bloke like dea. failure to turn players over  who do nothing quickly enough has indeded crucified us for way too long.


oh yeah just bto finish. with dea we are still very much hoping he will make it, and therin lies the problem, 5 yrs in and we still cant categorically say if he will make it or not and that is deplorable.
we could go to the nd and find a kid with a similar pick who in two yrs time will offer heaps more than what dea has to date.at what stage should we demand performances start to be at an acceptable level rather than just the odd glimpse.

when i use the  guide mids by 22 it makes me have a look at blokes like dea and ask why he hasnt got there and should we keep him based on what hes done. if honest both answers arent what you want to hear.

and just to finish ive backed dea in for 5 yrs but when do we as a club ask how long is long enough.
i suppose at the end of the day you think hes done enough to be kept whereas i dont. hes shown very little.

[eliminator]

I would only give him 1 more year because like you said he has had a bit of a go already but I'm just not convinced yet that he can't become a good ordinary player, a depth player that would be a definite improvement on Newman or Batchelor and free Vlastuin up for more midfield time.  With all these fringe types that are on the cusp of keep or delist, my method would have been at 3-10 to give these guys a guaranteed run of 6-7 games minimum in their best position and let them have a fair dinkum crack without the fear of being dropped for one bad game or decision.  Take some pressure off them by telling them they won't be dropped regardless and they have multiple games to show what they've got.  I've seen it work in other grades and sports before and I'm convinced it has a place in this circumstance.  Getting those 9 wins in a row was great in a short term emotional way but long term I would much rather have finished 11-12 and found out more definitive information on the fringe players than make the 8 and embarrass ourselves like we did.

Good Post

[YellowandBlackBlood]

I actually thought he improved a lot this year.
He showed a lot more composure.
He played very little football as a junior and because of this would give another year extension. Needs a big preseason.

[Judge Roughneck]

cmon smokey no ones saying its written in stone.
ive repeatedly said smls by 20, mediums by 22 talls by 24 as a loose guide. that is these types should click by that age but there are variables and other processes to go thru.

That's exactly what I'm saying Claw.

ffs i look at dea and say how old,  right 23 yrs old,  had 5 yrs should have clicked by now and been an established player. played just 31 games in those 5 yrs and only 10 in the last 2, why has he not clicked and why has he not established himself.

thee are no if or butts about it when you look at what hes done at the top lebvel it has been poor in anyones language.
i could live with giving him another yr if i could say to myself yep he will become a decent player. i cant say that and after 5 yrs for a player of his type its enough we should move on. now that is process.
we have a time line we set criteria we look at strengths weakness and performance  and make a call. matts had his chances time to give someone else a go id say.

That's just your opinion on the player and to be honest you are just as likely to be right than wrong.  Nothing to do with process because you (or me) don't have access to the 'real' data and info that is required to make the best valued judgement.

we fail as a club because believe it or not we hang onto far too many players just like matt dea and we have done it for yrs.  ffs we pay em to make calls on players its time they started to accept their responsibility make the calls or  f of out of the club.

Easy to judge the calls in hindsight.  I (often) don't always agree with them either but I don't think they are shirking their responsibility, just that they get it wrong every now and then .......... like most humans I know.

so do you agree its a reasonable loose guide and if you like starting point. they arent just numbers plucked out of the air they actuall correspond to what goes on in majority of cases.

smokestar im not sure what real data your on about.  i see the stats i see him play  i dont need much more to make a decent opinion. and yes
when you set out a time frame look at strengths weakness injury and performance it is a process and we should be judging players by these things and within certain timeframes.apply these things to all players and its a process. i do exactly that why cant the club. its like ticking boxes in a way.

also when they constantly fail to go thru proper processes we need to demand accountability. no hindsight with me smokey its a process and it is a constant one.

Your 'process' got Rance wrong, spin whatever crap you want, you got him wrong. You are doing the same with Matty Dea.
Picking talent in footballers is not about ages or time frames or kicks to advantage, sometimes it's about what you see in a player, if you have an eye for it!
Some take longer than others and some end up better than others, it's not a exact science. Have you ever just seen a player play and say this kid will make it from only a couple of pieces of play? And I'm not talking about the Judd, Selwood types, I'm talking about the kids that have come from a long way back.
Matty Dea is that for me.
I agree 5 years is too long for a normal kid from TAC that plays Matty's roll but when you choose to pick a bloke as a development player you have to be a bit more patient. The upside is worth it when/if it pays off.

oh dear please tell what did i get wrong with rance. and with rance unlike dea i have never ever called for him to be delisted. i have continually argued his role and his many deficirencies. which i am big enough to admit have improved enormously. it doesnt pay to criticise around here people just dont forgive.imo i havent got too much wrong with rance as each yr has unfolded.mate im moere than happy to stand by just about everything i have said about the bloke.

but  ffs where do you get off comparing dea with rance. there is no comparison between the two. matt gea has had 5 yrs and not done a thing.unlike rance who has always done some thing well but had plenty to work on.
dea has had just 31 games in 5 yrs. and stats that read like something i ccould muster up if given a go.. but your right its not just stats its what you see,  how often have i had that debate.

heres one for ya entering yr 6 can you categorically say he will make it. development player or not hes had a shedload of time and theres been so little return on our investment.

the touble is if he has another yr lije this you will be saying give him one more geez hes close i see good glimpses.sorry hes past the stage of being kept on good glimpses.he was past that stage two yrs ago.
ffs tone we have lists of just 42 5 yrs is an eternity for a bloke like dea. failure to turn players over  who do nothing quickly enough has indeded crucified us for way too long.


oh yeah just bto finish. with dea we are still very much hoping he will make it, and therin lies the problem, 5 yrs in and we still cant categorically say if he will make it or not and that is deplorable.
we could go to the nd and find a kid with a similar pick who in two yrs time will offer heaps more than what dea has to date.at what stage should we demand performances start to be at an acceptable level rather than just the odd glimpse.

when i use the  guide mids by 22 it makes me have a look at blokes like dea and ask why he hasnt got there and should we keep him based on what hes done. if honest both answers arent what you want to hear.

and just to finish ive backed dea in for 5 yrs but when do we as a club ask how long is long enough.
i suppose at the end of the day you think hes done enough to be kept whereas i dont. hes shown very little.

Has dea ever been giving a chance without being dropped immediately? Like arnot? Like most other kids we have.

Ffs miles was the best player for half a year in vfl - and yet not deemed worthy of a senior game