Doesn't that mean it wasn't Cameron's decision?

exactly, it was Daniher's decision

You say that because THEY HAVE come through. You can't unequivocally say that the recruiter new 100% that these blokes would shine at AFL level. The recruiters see that they MAY have the capacity to do so which is why they are picked. So in my estimation luck will always be a part of the process.

What's that famous sporting quote.... "the more I practice the luckier I get"

No one can guarantee unequivocally that any player will make it in the AFL. The higher the draft pick the more queries there are... but it's not luck - if it was luck you and I could be recruiters.

if it was luck you and I could be recruiters.

You misunderstand me. I'm not for a second saying that recruiters are not educated and on the pulse. Of course they are, it is the reason they are employed. My point is that these guys make educated guesses and can never know for sure how they will pan out so hindsight insofar as these blokes are concenred is ridiculous.

You misunderstand me. I'm not for a second saying that recruiters are not educated and on the pulse. Of course they are, it is the reason they are employed. My point is that these guys make educated guesses and can never know for sure how they will pan out so hindsight insofar as these blokes are concenred is ridiculous.

I agree. Not all their picks will work out and it's far more an art than it is a science. You can't simply run a template or a formula and hope to pick up a 200 game player with a fifty plus pick. The point I was making in a round about sort of way is that someone like CAC is well regarded within recruiting circles because he is relatively successful at making those later picks work compared to some of his contemporaries... and Richmond will certainly need that skill in the next few years. As a means of comparison and to highlight your point... if you look at Adelaide's James Fantasia - there's certainly no guarantees about top twenty picks either... Angwin, Watts, Meesen, Douglas, Pfeiffer. All 18 year olds, but particularly the KPP types are gambles... the skill (rather than luck in my eyes) is to narrow the risk by narrowing the variables as much as possible (which is why the club works so heavily on determining a potential draftees character/application etc)

this is the worst post I have ever read...

good for you! do you want explain how?

if you look at Adelaide's James Fantasia - there's certainly no guarantees about top twenty picks either... Angwin, Watts, Meesen, Douglas, Pfeiffer.

Richard Douglas can play. Another one of those underrated young crow mids. Van berlo, Knights, Reilly, Porpa, Symes, Thompson.

Richard Douglas can play. Another one of those underrated young crow mids. Van berlo, Knights, Reilly, Porpa, Symes, Thompson.

probably can, but they're batting at 20% for top twenty picks since 2000. not good value in anyone's money.

Accidently posted this reply in the wrong thread...

On reflection this is very interesting because it solves a long standing misconception.

Over the last couple of seasons there's been a story floating around that CAC was only ever overruled by Daniher once and it was a bit of a disaster and since then he made sure that it never happened again. I believe that CAC himself mentioned this in an interview but he didn't state which particuler draft pick it was and who were involved. The general view was that it was Luke Molan in the 'super draft', but this news obviously finally reveals the truth.

It may also open the doors to the different attitudes that may have existed between the two. Daniher after a quick fix and CAC leaning more toward the younger long term approach. Our history of trading and drafting for senior players (Holland, Motlop, Pickett etc) may back this up.

Interesting

On reflection this is very interesting because it solves a long standing misconception.

Over the last couple of seasons there's been a story floating around that CAC was only ever overruled by Daniher once and it was a bit of a disaster and since then he made sure that it never happened again. I believe that CAC himself mentioned this in an interview

You're right on this - I recall CAC saying the same thing.

he didn't state which particuler draft pick it was and who were involved. The general view was that it was Luke Molan in the 'super draft', but this news obviously finally reveals the truth.

It may also open the doors to the different attitudes that may have existed between the two. Daniher after a quick fix and CAC leaning more toward the younger long term approach. Our history of trading and drafting for senior players (Holland, Motlop, Pickett etc) may back this up.

Interesting

I agree in some respects, although it's possible you're reading too much into it. People have outlined Foley's weaknesses, but Read had plenty of them himself (and less potential).

Great Call. After the first 20 picks its total pot luck.

I think after pick 4-5 it can be a complete gamble, everybody develops differently. At 17 the body is still growing. The pecking order in the Draft is just opinions but of course the media like to categorize everything