Knackers wrote:
Too many flower make an assessment on stats and players they DON’T see on TV.
I noted in another thread that until we can prove that we CAN actually develop players, I will have nothing but sympathy for players like Sporn, Davies, Wiggins, Livo, Pendergast etc. IMO, the club AND Pagan are miles behind in this area.
What is really frustrating is that there appears to be no real plan for these guys. Is Sporn a forward, defender, midfielder, wingmen, tagger? Who the f**k would know because he's never been tried in any one position for an extended period of time and assured that the position is his. Last week Sporn earns a spot in the side through good form in the Bullants as a ‘ball winning’ midfielder… he is elevated and gets 20 minutes running on and off the ground, most likely to be dropped this week. The club does not seem to know what they want from him… same with Wiggins, same with Davies. Is Prenda a KP, ruck or ruck-rover or does he just get to run with the mobile big men. When these blokes do get the 'opportunity' their biggest fear is not the opposition, it's the runner!
The few players who have actually made marked progress such as Walker and possibly Houlihan were given specific roles and assumedly assurances of game time and consecutive matches. Livo was persisted with (out of necessity) and started to improve... what did we do? Drafted Martyn. Again last year he got a good go at full back, did nothing wrong until we played the Bulldogs where there was supposedly no match-up. F**ked him for the season.
Simpson, Bentick, Carrazzo, Betts etc. played there best footy when allowed to settle into a role. Many are still spending too much time in and out of the team, on and off the bench and in a host of different positions.
Maybe the could have made it, or maybe they ARE hacks, but the club needs to decide if they are part of the future as players or horses on the selection table carrousel and act accordingly.
100% spot on Knackers. Excellent post.
Danny... I find your argument on page 2 interesting. You're talking about too much black and white argument going on, but then you pick up on Wiggins saying he developed in the VFL and want to use that as evidence for some good work from Pagan.... ie you're taking a grey and recasting it into black and white
Do you expect Wiggo to say "Im learning a lot in the VFL, but if I'd played 20 more AFL games I might be a 20% better player.."????
Who knows what Wiggo would be like now if he'd played 20-40 more games by now?
Who knows? Its all grey.
Thats why I find your pat on the back for Pagan for Wiggo's extended run in the 2's a bit confusing, given your staunch anti-black-and-white post.
"Development" is a multifaceted practice. Its never black and white.... you just couldn't model "development" into a mathematical equation without any margin for error..... its impossible.
Where our arguments (like, the Knackers one I just commended) lie is comparing the "development" work going on with the list against alternative scenarios. And the more you do that, the more it SEEMS like whats happening to our young players is not the best strategy available to us. "SEEMS" = a reading of the shades of grey.
The appearance of the disparity between the Pagan case and other possible scenarios is so compelling that many of us, like me, are utterly convinced that the Pagan strategy is a poor one. For every so-called "success story", you have to wonder "well, how would Wiggo be going now if he'd played more 2s games", and "how much would Russell be learning if he was playing seniors", and "how is it beneficial for a Kennedy to get arse splinters and then get dropped? what is he learning from this?"
So, I think Danny that its all well and good to say that we are frustratingly black and white, but I ask you to think about perhaps taking your black and white glasses off when you read some of these posts.... or try not to be a victim of your own criticism (ie Wiggo)