My take away from his comments were that they were transitioning towards performance but there is still an emphasis on development. And so part of this exercise is ensuring you get enough games into the younger ones. So I would be up weighting anyone 1-3 years in and down weighting anyone 7+ years. On that basis suspect they will try and get more games into HH, Ryan, Watson etc thank you’ve got and the likes of bruest and especially Gunston should be railing off even more markedly to make room for their games. So I would have a change in emphasis in a couple of areas even if we pay for it on the scoreboard this is the year to do it.
Good work, Mick. Perhaps an update after Round 7 (we’ll have a few soldiers back) and after the Bye. Some guys currently on 0 will be hoping for a last chance eg Butler
I agree that there needs to be opportunity for developing players, however I think we need to be keep in mind who is out of contract at the end of 2024 - Hardwick, O'Sullivan*, Hustwaite*, DGB*, Stephens*, CJ, Morrison, Nash, Scrimshaw, Frost, Meek*, Breust, Bennetts*, Tucker*, Wingard, Gunston, Phillips* - as to who needs to prove themselves.
Those with * are the ones who probably need to be given a chance at some stage, although I think a couple may have an extension offered to them, irrespective of games played this year.
Very interesting analysis Mick. Hard to argue with your first shot but undoubtedly the season will serve up change.
If I was doing it I’d have a few games allocated to the likes of Butler, Phillips, Mitchell, MacDonald if for no other reason than by seasons end we will have needed to see their value for being retained going forward.
I took the view of adopting the "no limits" motto, so the allocation was to provide the most "competitive" team for the start of the year.
I agree on the need to give opportunities to some of the "developing" players, but this may become a focus in the second part of the year. Also, I think that it is worth noting who comes out of contract at the end of 2024 - Hardwick, O'Sullivan*, Hustwaite*, DGB*, Stephens*, CJ, Morrison, Nash, Scrimshaw, Frost, Meek*, Breust, Bennetts*, Tucker*, Wingard, Gunston, Phillips* - as to who needs to be given an opportunity this year. There are a couple you've named who contracted into 2025.
* These are the players who haven't yet had a body of work to assess their capacity to play at the level or may have a need to prove their worth. I do think, as of today, that there are a couple on the list who would be offered contract extensions of varying lengths, irrespective of games played this year.
Great crack at an extremely hard task Mick! Last season we had 4 players who played all 23 games. There’s bound to be some injury games (concussion injuries impacted 29% of players league wide last season) although it is very hard to say ‘Blake Hardwick will miss 2 games through concussion’ when forecasting.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the forecasts put in place for each individual player tally up to a number far greater than 529 as history tells us we will lose a chunk of games to injury this season. We just hope that the injuries are minor and don’t derail the development of any player who starts to get on a roll!
I’d like to see another version where you distribute another 40-50 games across those with zeros to account for injuries.
As you said, by round 7 we will have some idea about where those 50 games will come from!
You're right on the impact of injuries/suspensions, however I adopted the "no limits" view from the start of the season with the aim to be as competitive as possible. When you look back at last year - Day, Worpel, Newcombe & Nash missed 3 games between them for the season which impacted on the opportunities for Ward, McKenzie, Hustwaite & Long.
Remember that "529" is the magic number (23 games x 23 players - unless the AFL allow us to play 24 players in a few games), so it then becomes a matter of reshuffling the cards amongst the playing list to provide opportunity to others on the list, but sticking to 529.
My take away from his comments were that they were transitioning towards performance but there is still an emphasis on development. And so part of this exercise is ensuring you get enough games into the younger ones. So I would be up weighting anyone 1-3 years in and down weighting anyone 7+ years. On that basis suspect they will try and get more games into HH, Ryan, Watson etc thank you’ve got and the likes of bruest and especially Gunston should be railing off even more markedly to make room for their games. So I would have a change in emphasis in a couple of areas even if we pay for it on the scoreboard this is the year to do it.
Good work, Mick. Perhaps an update after Round 7 (we’ll have a few soldiers back) and after the Bye. Some guys currently on 0 will be hoping for a last chance eg Butler
Thanks Jan.
I agree that there needs to be opportunity for developing players, however I think we need to be keep in mind who is out of contract at the end of 2024 - Hardwick, O'Sullivan*, Hustwaite*, DGB*, Stephens*, CJ, Morrison, Nash, Scrimshaw, Frost, Meek*, Breust, Bennetts*, Tucker*, Wingard, Gunston, Phillips* - as to who needs to prove themselves.
Those with * are the ones who probably need to be given a chance at some stage, although I think a couple may have an extension offered to them, irrespective of games played this year.
Zane will have his work cut out at Box Hill and also looks like our contract boffins have a big job this season!
Would prioritize Mitchell and B. Mac over Maginness
Ryan should get a couple toward the back half
Not sure Weddle plays every game - will need some management
DGB gets games in second half of season.
Not sure Reeves plays every game either
Mids look alright
Forwards alright but will be interesting to see what they do with Wingard. Surely Butler gets another crack.
Very interesting analysis Mick. Hard to argue with your first shot but undoubtedly the season will serve up change.
If I was doing it I’d have a few games allocated to the likes of Butler, Phillips, Mitchell, MacDonald if for no other reason than by seasons end we will have needed to see their value for being retained going forward.
Your next assessment will be interesting.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks Graeme.
I took the view of adopting the "no limits" motto, so the allocation was to provide the most "competitive" team for the start of the year.
I agree on the need to give opportunities to some of the "developing" players, but this may become a focus in the second part of the year. Also, I think that it is worth noting who comes out of contract at the end of 2024 - Hardwick, O'Sullivan*, Hustwaite*, DGB*, Stephens*, CJ, Morrison, Nash, Scrimshaw, Frost, Meek*, Breust, Bennetts*, Tucker*, Wingard, Gunston, Phillips* - as to who needs to be given an opportunity this year. There are a couple you've named who contracted into 2025.
* These are the players who haven't yet had a body of work to assess their capacity to play at the level or may have a need to prove their worth. I do think, as of today, that there are a couple on the list who would be offered contract extensions of varying lengths, irrespective of games played this year.
Great crack at an extremely hard task Mick! Last season we had 4 players who played all 23 games. There’s bound to be some injury games (concussion injuries impacted 29% of players league wide last season) although it is very hard to say ‘Blake Hardwick will miss 2 games through concussion’ when forecasting.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the forecasts put in place for each individual player tally up to a number far greater than 529 as history tells us we will lose a chunk of games to injury this season. We just hope that the injuries are minor and don’t derail the development of any player who starts to get on a roll!
I’d like to see another version where you distribute another 40-50 games across those with zeros to account for injuries.
As you said, by round 7 we will have some idea about where those 50 games will come from!
Thanks Marcus.
You're right on the impact of injuries/suspensions, however I adopted the "no limits" view from the start of the season with the aim to be as competitive as possible. When you look back at last year - Day, Worpel, Newcombe & Nash missed 3 games between them for the season which impacted on the opportunities for Ward, McKenzie, Hustwaite & Long.
Remember that "529" is the magic number (23 games x 23 players - unless the AFL allow us to play 24 players in a few games), so it then becomes a matter of reshuffling the cards amongst the playing list to provide opportunity to others on the list, but sticking to 529.
Fair enough Mick. It’s all theory I guess but is an interesting perspective as to how teams can be selected. Love your informed insights.