Matty White [merged]

[mightytiges]

There always appears to be enough others with their head on the chopping block first that by the time the Club gets to Whitey they do their "mark out of 1000" ranking they determine that despite his deficiencies he's still better as a senior listed player than the 'unknown' kids selected at say pick 60 in the draft with deficiencies of their own. He has  no trade value either so the Club can't swap him for something worthwhile. It would've also helped him that the Club thinks it is locked and loaded  for finals in 2013 so they want ready-made fringe players to call on as temporary fill-ins. I'm not saying that's the way it should be and I can't believe Whitey is still around after 7 years to play mostly at Coburg again either but that's how he's surviving IMO. This time around he only 'just' survived along with McGuane  and Derickx. Hard to see those names not being at the top of the cutting list in 12 months time.

the club hardly acknowledges list deficiencies. craig cameron certainly does not.

we are not talking 18 yr olds here we are talking mature recruits both afl and state league.
we are 4 talls short on the list including ruckmen. in fact we are we are screaming out for a ruckman.
we are are at a minimum 4 mids short yet none of this is acknowledged.  we are looking at petterd another med  forward they certainly acknowledge the weakness in this area. in fact its been over kill petterd if we rookie him  edwards, knights who is to play also as a mid, to go with nahas, king, s edwards and likely martin will again spend significant time forward. now add white and tell me from a list perspective we needed to keep white.
pick 60 plus would enable us to take kyle martin a mature mid, or jack hannath or cameron symonds both ruckmen of promise. oth 20 and 21. it would enable us to take a tall player like hartigan or even allow us to take a tall at 43 and another mid at 60 plus.the options are nendless and the opportunity to actually attempt to fill a hole is huge yet we go again with a known hack.
fair dinkum id give another forward in duffy a 20/21  yr old a go in front of white he actually as far as filling up a hole and attending to age gaps is a good fit.

other options we had.
well we all including the club are crying about the lack of mids yet we dont even put in an offer for the best performed mid in f/a in moloney.    bloody hell moloney for two yrs or white  or jackson for that matter.

if they cant find a better player than white at 60 ot in the psd or f/a or even rookie they should give up.

tell me will he play in front of is it it even remotely likely he will play in front of king nahas, knights, edwards, edwards, even ohanlon possibly petterd and martin. not on your life. depth pppfffffttt.hes the worst of a poor lot and hes had 7 yrs to show hes worth a spot and failed abysmally.
they have it wrong.

I'm not defending the decision to not delist Whitey. As you've argued Claw there is no reason for keeping him on our list based on what he offers judging him alone. However the Club doesn't just judge players that way. They look at a whole swag of footballers (RFC players, opposition players, state leaguers and U18s kids) and they give each of them a score out of 1000 based on a variety of KPIs and criterias (with a score of 500 being the average AFL player). They then compare these players based on where they are available as far our draft picks and trades. So they'll have a draft order list with all the U18s and potential state leaguers they are interested in in order from best to also-ran and then in say Whitey's case they would've compared the score of U18 kid/state leaguer's at our pick 60 (or whatever our pick after pick 43 would've been) on their list with Whitey's score. If the latter is greater than the former then Whitey stays which appears what has happened.

Now rather than us just saying Whitey is a list clogging spud who our 38th (ie. last) senior-listed player, the real question needed to be answered by the Club is why the KPIs and criteria used for the rankings rate higher an existing fringe player who hasn't come on after a whole 7 years and offers sub-AFL standard football than a U18 kid or state leaguer? Effectively the answer given by the Club with their decision to keep Whitey is they don't rate anybody via their score rankings at that late pick stage or later (including in rookie draft). That would fit in with the Club looking at delisted AFL players as mentioned today. It seems the Club is not going to take the 'risk' of trying to find a gem in the rough late in the National draft or in the rookie draft this year.  Some would argue to the Club that a low percentage 'unknown' is still better than keeping hold onto a zero percentage known like Whitey. Obviously the Club disagrees with that view.

[Coach]

Surely some of these kids/state league players could improve massively if they were in the system for a few years let alone 7. Wonder what ranking a 17 year old greg white would have had

Bed time. yes

[one-eyed]

Surely some of these kids/state league players could improve massively if they were in the system for a few years let alone 7. Wonder what ranking a 17 year old greg white would have had

Yep there's always at least one rookie each year who proves all the clubs who overlooked him wrong.

Bed time. yes

[Danog]

Bed time. yes

That's not the rag the Coach uses.

[tony_montana]

There always appears to be enough others with their head on the chopping block first that by the time the Club gets to Whitey they do their "mark out of 1000" ranking they determine that despite his deficiencies he's still better as a senior listed player than the 'unknown' kids selected at say pick 60 in the draft with deficiencies of their own. He has  no trade value either so the Club can't swap him for something worthwhile.

yep, i think you are the money there MT

It would've also helped him that the Club thinks it is locked and loaded  for finals in 2013 so they want ready-made fringe players to call on as temporary fill-ins. I'm not saying that's the way it should be and I can't believe Whitey is still around after 7 years to play mostly at Coburg again either but that's how he's surviving IMO. This time around he only 'just' survived along with McGuane  and Derickx. Hard to see those names not being at the top of the cutting list in 12 months time.

again have to agree, except for the "locked and loaded" Where the hell did you pull that crap from?
The quote you posted in another thread from Dimma harldy seems to be implying the club thinks it is locked and loaded

It wasn't meant to be a direct quote from anyone at the Club. More an expression on my part to describe the Club's view that we're past the list development stage and it's now time we finally made the finals. I mean the Club was targeting finals this year even though I believed at the start of the season we wouldn't make it as we were too young, inexperienced and had poor depth. While Dimma is right to say finals isn't a right of passage, we have the likes of Craig Cameron talking about making the finals next year and there being no excuses. Dimma was just trying to keep the lid on the expectations of supporters.

Oh they expect finals, CC made a quote several weeks ago about getting the coaching staff away from the club for a break to freshen up as they expect them to be here well into september next year. 

[Penelope]

i would stuffing hope they expect finals.

[Gigantor]

CC seems to be calling all the shots for quite some time now.How do people here generally rate his performance?..i guess the jury is out still.
I must admit when i really first noticed him during the terry wallace departure i was less than enthusiastic with him,although that was partly because of what i thought was a very ordinary performance in front of the camera....

[yellowandback]

Whose Matty Whites dad?

[RedanTiger]

CC seems to be calling all the shots for quite some time now.How do people here generally rate his performance?..i guess the jury is out still.
I must admit when i really first noticed him during the terry wallace departure i was less than enthusiastic with him,although that was partly because of what i thought was a very ordinary performance in front of the camera....

Yep, was quite a performance through that whole period.
The Football Head who didn't know about the rift between players and the coach.
When it did blow up in his face with all the media reports he seemed to stand back and hold March's coat while HE read the riot act to the players.

Thinking about the Edwards trade from a List Manager perspective he should have said to Hardwick
"You wanted a big defender - we got in Chaplin.
You wanted a mature medium forward - we got in Knights.
But, we are not going to compromise our list to get a 29 year old medium forward who has behaviour problems and can't get a regular game at his current club.
This is particluarly true when we don't know who is going to be available in Delisted Free Agency or Pre-season Draft and you want to keep White and Derickx ."

His job as Football Head and List Manager is to safeguard the long term future of the club against any short term temptations of the staff.
Add the medical risks of Riewoldt, Vickery, Maric, Foley and McGuane and there's some real questions raised.

[one-eyed]

VIDEO: Matty White tells us about his pre-season and how the new fitness staff are already having an impact ...

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/roarvisionarchive/tabid/11454/contentid/503439/default.aspx

[tony_montana]

i would stuffing hope they expect finals.

absolutely, and hopefully we wont have fans getting cute telling us that the club didnt actually 'say' they expected finals if things go pear shaped

[Coach]

i would stuffing hope they expect finals.

absolutely, and hopefully we wont have fans getting cute telling us that the club didnt actually 'say' they expected finals if things go pear shaped

Club has failed their own plan. They wanted finals last season so they most definitely expect it next year. Hardwick will remain in 2014 regardless of results due to his contract that was given to him very early in 2012.... Let's just hope we play finals otherwise the circus returns in 2013. By stuff this gonna be fun either way

[the claw]

I'm not defending the decision to not delist Whitey. As you've argued Claw there is no reason for keeping him on our list based on what he offers judging him alone. However the Club doesn't just judge players that way. They look at a whole swag of footballers (RFC players, opposition players, state leaguers and U18s kids) and they give each of them a score out of 1000 based on a variety of KPIs and criterias (with a score of 500 being the average AFL player). They then compare these players based on where they are available as far our draft picks and trades. So they'll have a draft order list with all the U18s and potential state leaguers they are interested in in order from best to also-ran and then in say Whitey's case they would've compared the score of U18 kid/state leaguer's at our pick 60 (or whatever our pick after pick 43 would've been) on their list with Whitey's score. If the latter is greater than the former then Whitey stays which appears what has happened.

Now rather than us just saying Whitey is a list clogging spud who our 38th (ie. last) senior-listed player, the real question needed to be answered by the Club is why the KPIs and criteria used for the rankings rate higher an existing fringe player who hasn't come on after a whole 7 years and offers sub-AFL standard football than a U18 kid or state leaguer? Effectively the answer given by the Club with their decision to keep Whitey is they don't rate anybody via their score rankings at that late pick stage or later (including in rookie draft). That would fit in with the Club looking at delisted AFL players as mentioned today. It seems the Club is not going to take the 'risk' of trying to find a gem in the rough late in the National draft or in the rookie draft this year.  Some would argue to the Club that a low percentage 'unknown' is still better than keeping hold onto a zero percentage known like Whitey. Obviously the Club disagrees with that view.

thats a very good post mt. one of some very good ones you have done on this topic.
while im reluctant to criticise them going thru a good process and what you describe is a very good process  and we have failed to have any sort of process for 30 yrs in this area, but surely we have to be flexable at times and go outside the process.
 
its a damn good question you ask.
why is the KPIS and criteria/processes that are used for the rankings, rate higher an existing fringe player who hasnt come on after a whole 7 yrs. the obvious answer is the process is not perfect and has some flaws. they need to acknowledge this and on the odd occasion step outside the process or we will continue to have more than our fair share of matt whites in our system for 7 plus yrs.if they cant step outsside their system perhaps somehow  continuing to improve it and modifying it is the way to go. one thing that seems a regular occurance with us is the number of very ordinary players who last 75 or 7 yrs sometimes longer in or system.

it concerns me greatly that we are so rigid and inflexable when it comes to player types like matt white. there has to be something wrong with the process if they cant find and target a better player who scores higher in their process  weather that be nd, rookie draft or f/a than matt white.
i have to ask at what point do you perhaps say. hey we have had this bloke 7 yrs for very little return,  perhaps its time to take a chance on a kid or perhaps take an older very short term  proven player like moloney or try a state league player with the right skillset and physical attribetes who hhas performed consistently well in his league. instead of going with what they must know is a below standard player despite their criteria.
footy like most things in life has its fair share of grey areas. the more black and white we can keep things the better but its not always possible to do so.


Edited to correct quote

[mightytiges]

I'm not defending the decision to not delist Whitey. As you've argued Claw there is no reason for keeping him on our list based on what he offers judging him alone. However the Club doesn't just judge players that way. They look at a whole swag of footballers (RFC players, opposition players, state leaguers and U18s kids) and they give each of them a score out of 1000 based on a variety of KPIs and criterias (with a score of 500 being the average AFL player). They then compare these players based on where they are available as far our draft picks and trades. So they'll have a draft order list with all the U18s and potential state leaguers they are interested in in order from best to also-ran and then in say Whitey's case they would've compared the score of U18 kid/state leaguer's at our pick 60 (or whatever our pick after pick 43 would've been) on their list with Whitey's score. If the latter is greater than the former then Whitey stays which appears what has happened.

Now rather than us just saying Whitey is a list clogging spud who our 38th (ie. last) senior-listed player, the real question needed to be answered by the Club is why the KPIs and criteria used for the rankings rate higher an existing fringe player who hasn't come on after a whole 7 years and offers sub-AFL standard football than a U18 kid or state leaguer? Effectively the answer given by the Club with their decision to keep Whitey is they don't rate anybody via their score rankings at that late pick stage or later (including in rookie draft). That would fit in with the Club looking at delisted AFL players as mentioned today. It seems the Club is not going to take the 'risk' of trying to find a gem in the rough late in the National draft or in the rookie draft this year.  Some would argue to the Club that a low percentage 'unknown' is still better than keeping hold onto a zero percentage known like Whitey. Obviously the Club disagrees with that view.

thats a very good post mt. one of some very good ones you have done on this topic.
while im reluctant to criticise them going thru a good process and what you describe is a very good process  and we have failed to have any sort of process for 30 yrs in this area, but surely we have to be flexable at times and go outside the process.
 
its a damn good question you ask.
why is the KPIS and criteria/processes that are used for the rankings, rate higher an existing fringe player who hasnt come on after a whole 7 yrs. the obvious answer is the process is not perfect and has some flaws. they need to acknowledge this and on the odd occasion step outside the process or we will continue to have more than our fair share of matt whites in our system for 7 plus yrs.if they cant step outsside their system perhaps somehow  continuing to improve it and modifying it is the way to go. one thing that seems a regular occurance with us is the number of very ordinary players who last 75 or 7 yrs sometimes longer in or system.

it concerns me greatly that we are so rigid and inflexable when it comes to player types like matt white. there has to be something wrong with the process if they cant find and target a better player who scores higher in their process  weather that be nd, rookie draft or f/a than matt white.
i have to ask at what point do you perhaps say. hey we have had this bloke 7 yrs for very little return,  perhaps its time to take a chance on a kid or perhaps take an older very short term  proven player like moloney or try a state league player with the right skillset and physical attribetes who hhas performed consistently well in his league. instead of going with what they must know is a below standard player despite their criteria.
footy like most things in life has its fair share of grey areas. the more black and white we can keep things the better but its not always possible to do so.


Edited to correct quote

I agree Claw the system use is flawed when it comes to fringe players remaining on our list for 7-9 years. It only feels like 75 years  . There's an old timeframe rule where if a player depending on his size/type hasn't cemented himself in the team's 22 then it's time to 'cut'. So a small (sub 6ft) like Whitey may have a limit of 4 years max. to come on, midsize mid 5 years. tall 6 years and a ruck 7 years (apart from the freaks, ruckmen don't reach their pick until their mid 20s.).

The other issue which I forgot to mention in my previous post and which the Club would use as an excuse, is that National draft draftees compulsorily receive a 2-year deal while Whitey has been given a one-year new contract. The Club would argue this gives it greater flexibility next year as far as cutting back the list and then recruiting new players most likely replacing a Whitey with a 1st or 2nd round pick in 2013. My response to that is that list management isn't a year to year proposition and the Club would've/should've been doing list planning over a couple of seasons so that if Whitey had been delisted last year then the kid who would've replaced him would now have just a year left on his contract now. Holding onto Whitey for another year last year has compounded the flaw which sees him now been given a one-year deal for 2013 because we don't want to give an unknown U18 kid or state leaguer a two year deal.

[dwaino]

White still around goes to show how far back we're coming from. He only came in after injuries last year and so would have any late pick or state league player and neither would be likely play next year. I'm not making any excuses for White or the club but it's so easily justified why he got one more year (so we don't have to cut a better player next year and we can replace him with a first three draft pick who is more likely than a punt this year that we'll also be stuck with for two years) I'm not sure what all the hoo haa is about.