Just read an article highlighting the epic proportions of the Richmond stuff up with their 2004 drafting strategy when they had 5 picks in the top 20.

Richmond's Recruiting Nightmare

There are lessons to be learnt here and it just goes to show that it is not what draft picks you have but how you use them that really matters.

That's the sort of disaster that can take a decade or more to recover from. In a way I feel sorry for them.

The kids obviously had the wrong attitude if they annointed themselves the "fab five".

I think they have served as timely lesson for us.

I get the feeling that the tiges deviated from best available in that draft.

I read that today too... and was a bit shocked. I knew the individual cases of the players, like Polo who snaffled a Rising Star nod in a 4-goal BOG performance in his first game, and did literally nothing since then. But I didn't know they all came from what should have been a watershed recruiting year. That's scary stuff.

To be fair to the guys selected, they had a rubbish list and a shocker of a coach. They may have had different careers on a better list with a better coach. I am not saying that they did not stuff the draft up.

The History books will state that the 2004 draft set the tigers back a good half decade.

It would have been even better if it had been Collingwood

I read that today too... and was a bit shocked. I knew the individual cases of the players, like Polo who snaffled a Rising Star nod in a 4-goal BOG performance in his first game, and did literally nothing since then. But I didn't know they all came from what should have been a watershed recruiting year. That's scary stuff.

That is a damning fact DD and one that justifies just how hard this recruiting caper really is. At that point it would have been high 5s and backslaps all round. How wrong they were.

Just enhances the "Best Available" scenario doesn't it. As has been stated in previous threads if you have too many gun Midfielders you can always draft them out for Top Currency at a later date.

But an ordinary player who was drafted for a particular reason will always be ordinary.

That said i reckon the Richmond "culture" has not helped these guys. Will be very interesting to watch the development of Richard Tambling in Adelaide. He could be another Rohdan.

Rubbish. You need good draft picks and you need to use them.

... on the best available and not for needs or for type. Particularly with picks in the top 30.

To be fair to the guys selected, they had a rubbish list and a shocker of a coach. They may have had different careers on a better list with a better coach. I am not saying that they did not stuff the draft up.

The History books will state that the 2004 draft set the tigers back a good half decade.

I agree they had a shocking coach but which top draft picks go to clubs with good lists? None that's why they are low draft picks.

Richmond supporters have the right to be bitter for a long long time and do I care ?? Not one bit.

The appointment of Tim Harrington is just another masterstroke from the dees !!!!

This should be a good lesson for us on how things can go wrong. Our choice draft picks are still unrealised potential. Many here are getting too optimistic and expect success to be automatic. There is am enormous amount of hard work yet to be done.

Edited October 15, 201014 yr by america de cali

This should be a good lesson for us on how things can go wrong.

Has anyone had a look at our own drafting in the first few years of the decade?

Has anyone had a look at our own drafting in the first few years of the decade?

Very good point, Thats why one Tim Harrington was employed.

Has anyone had a look at our own drafting in the first few years of the decade?

Agree, very good point. Very ordinary indeed but we were consistently still playing finals then so had very few choice picks. But that is no excuse. We should have done better.

One of my personal favourites was when the toiges drafted Paul Hudson.

No sympathy for them

Just read an article highlighting the epic proportions of the Richmond stuff up with their 2004 drafting strategy when they had 5 picks in the top 20.

Richmond's Recruiting Nightmare

There are lessons to be learnt here and it just goes to show that it is not what draft picks you have but how you use them that really matters.

I remember the day when the five were drafted. The Tigers celebrated with a BBQ at Richmond President Clinton Casey's plush Avon Court mansion in Hawthorn which was sold last year at what was then a record price. Coach Terry Wallace was ecstatic and all at Tigerland were looking forward to a period of sustained success. I don't think any of the personalities involved are traveling as well as they were then.

Rubbish. You need good draft picks and you need to use them.

Whilst it's easy to crow at the Tigers fate 2004 was a terrible draft with nothing much beyond Franklin (5) with La Cras the exception at 37 - so nobody rated him.

The drafts of 2003, 2004 and 2005 had very little top end talent and unless you had very early picks and got it right it was no time to be rebuilding.

Rubbish yourself. Have a look at Collingwood Peanuts. Aside from 1 year they have had bugger all top 10 picks. Yet with astute draft selection they built a premiership team.

Melbourne and Richmond have had far better picks over the last decade and whilst i believe Melbourne has done pretty well especially recently, the Tigers were the opposite and have paid a massive price for it. As for the quality in the 2004 draft, take a closer look and you will see there were plenty of quality players selected, but the Tigers simply made some bad choices.

This should be a good lesson for us on how things can go wrong. Our choice draft picks are still unrealised potential. Many here are getting too optimistic and expect success to be automatic. There is am enormous amount of hard work yet to be done.

Exactly, and just to repeat it again: There is am enormous amount of hard work yet to be done.

Agree, very good point. Very ordinary indeed but we were consistently still playing finals then so had very few choice picks. But that is no excuse. We should have done better.

Yep. My case in point is Collingwood.

I remember the day when the five were drafted. The Tigers celebrated with a BBQ at Richmond President Clinton Casey's plush Avon Court mansion in Hawthorn which was sold last year at what was then a record price. Coach Terry Wallace was ecstatic and all at Tigerland were looking forward to a period of sustained success. I don't think any of the personalities involved are traveling as well as they were then.

Ha. That rings some bells.

I can't wait to see Melbourne doing the same at Jimmy's place to celebrate all the hard work that went into achieving our 13th premiership!

Tigers showed a lack of foresight, not recognizing that is was a weak draft.

At the same time, they were incredibly unlucky that the draft they loaded up on picks for was pretty weak.

Timing was largely out of their control.

When you need to rebuild, you need to rebuild.

Tigers showed a lack of foresight, not recognizing that is was a weak draft.

At the same time, they were incredibly unlucky that the draft they loaded up on picks for was pretty weak.

Timing was largely out of their control.

When you need to rebuild, you need to rebuild.

Could've been worse...could've been the '03 draft.

Agree, very good point. Very ordinary indeed but we were consistently still playing finals then so had very few choice picks. But that is no excuse. We should have done better.

2001 was a disaster year. Molan, Armstrong and Rogers were all disappointments

This should be a good lesson for us on how things can go wrong. Our choice draft picks are still unrealised potential. Many here are getting too optimistic and expect success to be automatic. There is am enormous amount of hard work yet to be done.

You're right about the hard work. However 2004 should have been a lesson to all about recruiting for type. And Wallet loved small fast outside running players. He cashed in big time and paid the price.

Tim Harrington has nothing to do with picking recruits, that's Barry Prendergast.

It's interesting that the same recruiter that gave us Rigoni, Brown, Whelan and Bruce (all last picks) early in his career bombed out from 2000 to 2004 and then did so well in his final years. Make no mistake, if we have success Craig Cameron's fingerprints will be all over it with Davey (Rookie), Frawley, Garland, Morton, Bartram, Jones, Petterd, Grimes, Warnock (Rookie), Wonaeamirri (Rookie), Spencer (Rookie) and perhaps even blokes like Martin and Maric. Not all will be there but quite a lot will and just about all will have helped us along the way.

He recruited Thompson in 2000 which was a good selection but we could not keep him. We did not have a 2nd round pick due to draft penalties. His 1999 vintage was good. But you are right about the recruits that CAC sourced.

Tigers showed a lack of foresight, not recognizing that is was a weak draft.

15 other Clubs got it wrong too. Picking drafts in advance is not a skill any AFL club has and its almost impossible to pick.

Actually I believe in 2003 we did OK in retrospect. After Sylvia and McLean there was not much. The best of this sad lot are Brent Stanton(13), David Mundy(19), Zac Dawson(41), Sam Fisher(55) and Michael Rischitelli(61). Out of this lot I'd take Fisher and Mundy.

Sylvia is now playing good footy and looks like he may get better and we got a good deal for McLean. Not a total loss.

Edited October 16, 201014 yr by america de cali

Quoting Rhino Richards. 15 other Clubs got it wrong too. Picking drafts in advance is not a skill any AFL club has and its almost impossible to pick.

Edited October 16, 201014 yr by america de cali

The list of all No 1s is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_Draft#Pre-season_draft

I would say the first six No 1's were a case of lack of expertise in recruiting.

The last 5 years of No 1 is in the early stages but I think they will all be worthy No 1s

A number 1 pick in my opinion has to be at least a 10 year, 200 game player with higher accolades through his career.

The ones who qualify as worthy or who I believe will get there.

1992 - Drew Banfield

1994 - Jeff White

2000 - Nick Riewoldt

2001 - Luke Hodge

2002 - Brendan Goddard

2003 - Adam Cooney

2004 - Brett Deledio

1995 - 1999 - Picks never lived up to the expectations. In some cases the player was a big disappointment.

15 other Clubs got it wrong too. Picking drafts in advance is not a skill any AFL club has and its almost impossible to pick.

You're wrong, 15 other clubs didn't load up on picks in that draft.

And clubs do try to judge whether certain drafts are strong or weak.

Eg. Last year was considered to be a weak draft for talls.

They might not often be correct, or state it publicly, but using their expert judgement to try to predict the quality available is a large part of both TH & BP's roles.

The list of all No 1s is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_Draft#Pre-season_draft

I would say the first six No 1's were a case of lack of expertise in recruiting.

The last 5 years of No 1 is in the early stages but I think they will all be worthy No 1s

A number 1 pick in my opinion has to be at least a 10 year, 200 game player with higher accolades through his career.

The ones who qualify as worthy or who I believe will get there.

1992 - Drew Banfield

1994 - Jeff White

2000 - Nick Riewoldt

2001 - Luke Hodge

2002 - Brendan Goddard

2003 - Adam Cooney

2004 - Brett Deledio

1995 - 1999 - Picks never lived up to the expectations. In some cases the player was a big disappointment.

IMO, clubs look to a Number I pick as a player they hope will develop to the best example of the type of player they re looking for. If clubs had hind sight I doubt Banfield, White and Deledio would be No 1 picks if they knew how their careers would pan out. Perhaps good top 10 picks at best.