Memo: Barry Prendergast

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Exactly and thats why you are sweating the small stuff over Buckley and co.

And BTW, the issue at MFC is not an issue over fringe/depth. We have stacks in that department Its about quality in the top 10 to 20 on our list. There is the issue.

Buckley would be a fringe player at both Clubs and is he critical to Collingwoods success. Yeah right. He's hardly a hard body player and plays on the outside. They are a dime a dozen.

See once again you've got it wrong, who are the "and co" you refer to?

I mentioned Buckley as a player that has been given a chance at another club and has done well, the premier club no less. We have had a consistent history of failing to get the best out of our players he is just a small sample of that history. I would venture to say that any current MFC player would develop in to a better player and at a much more rapid rate than they would at Melbourne.

We have a history of failing to get the best out of what we have and that's why we consistently fail to reach the top, even though we have had some side with a fair amount of talent in them The 1994 side was stacked full of good players that my have been great given the right opportunity and the right coaching and development.

But you just keep on thinking that all's well, it's less stressful that way.

[IWAP 170]

The only difference between Buckley at Melbourne and Buckley at Collingwood is the quality of his team-mates. He looks fine when Collingwood are dominating (which lets face it, is the majority of the time), but in times this year when the pressure has been on, there has been his trademark stray kicks, and bad decision making.

[Red and Blue Flame 186]

I am no recruiter, and am not here to blow my own trumpet, but when i watched the games from the U/18 champs two years ago on Foxtel, the two players I liked the look of and thought would be great to see in Melbourne colours were Jack Darling and Dustin Martin.

Now i have no problem with Trengove, he looks like he will be a fine player, but Martin to me is everything we yearn for at Melbourne, we have all seen him play so there is no need to describe him.

In Darling I saw a player who had great presence on the field, who looked to love everything physical about the game. Another quality sorely lacking at MFC.

The only question remains, if they were drafted to our club, would our culture, game style or whatever actually drag them down to a level they are currently not playing at?

Three years on from our superdrafts, instead of people talking about Watss, Scully, Trengove, Strauss, Blease and Gysberts. They are all talking about Hurley, Hill, Martin, Darling and Fyfe.

forgot tappy

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

See once again you've got it wrong, who are the "and co" you refer to?

I mentioned Buckley as a player that has been given a chance at another club and has done well, the premier club no less. We have had a consistent history of failing to get the best out of our players he is just a small sample of that history. I would venture to say that any current MFC player would develop in to a better player and at a much more rapid rate than they would at Melbourne.

We have a history of failing to get the best out of what we have and that's why we consistently fail to reach the top, even though we have had some side with a fair amount of talent in them The 1994 side was stacked full of good players that my have been great given the right opportunity and the right coaching and development.

But you just keep on thinking that all's well, it's less stressful that way.

Buckley is a fringe player at a top club and is no more a struggler at CFC as he was at MFC. Buckley is hardly a litmus test of that.

The 1994 side was crippled by injuries from 1995 to 1998...Ox, Tingay, Lyon, Lovett, Prymke, Charles. They all had great opportunities but could not get on the track.

Never let the facts......

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Buckley is a fringe player at a top club and is no more a struggler at CFC as he was at MFC. Buckley is hardly a litmus test of that.

The 1994 side was crippled by injuries from 1995 to 1998...Ox, Tingay, Lyon, Lovett, Prymke, Charles. They all had great opportunities but could not get on the track.

Never let the facts......

Boy this is hard.

Buckley got the flick from melbourne because he was deemed expendable and not good enough, Collingwoood picked him up, they think enough of him to play him most weeks. I reckon I would back their judgement over yours.

Anyway why are you trying to make tis all about him don't you have anything else to offer? This is about the club and its ability to recruit and develop players if you haven't got a view then why do you continue to waste time on here? If it's just to have a crack at me then go for it, if you are fair dinkum about the debate then for Christ's sake post something that will add value.

The 1994 side was vey good and in my opinion they were good enough to win the flag THAT YEAR I'm not talking about the injuries that occurred after '94 I'm talking about winning a flag that year.

Now what facts are you referring to?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Buckley got the flick from melbourne because he was deemed expendable and not good enough, Collingwoood picked him up, they think enough of him to play him most weeks. I reckon I would back their judgement over yours.

Anyway why are you trying to make tis all about him don't you have anything else to offer?

Buckley has played rds 1, 2 and 6 are hardly set the world on fire. If he looks betters its because the 21 blokes surrounding him at CFC are better than 21 blokes at MFC currently. Sorry about the facts.

I only responded to Buckley because it was your latest "strawman" (thanks Rogue) argument to suggest something which is more complex than you cater seemingly understand. And delving back into the history does not provide any relevant facts to now. Same club but different players, different FD, different budgets etc.

This is about the club and its ability to recruit and develop players if you haven't got a view then why do you continue to waste time on here? If it's just to have a crack at me then go for it, if you are fair dinkum about the debate then for Christ's sake post something that will add value.

Irony.

The 1994 side was vey good and in my opinion they were good enough to win the flag THAT YEAR I'm not talking about the injuries that occurred after '94 I'm talking about winning a flag that year.

Now what facts are you referring to?

I am not sure what the relevance was of 1994 to the situation now or since then but in your need of facts I will help out.

WCE finished the home and away on top of the ladder with 16 wins and 6 losses. MFC finished 6th with 12 wins and 10 losses.

Despite an encouraging wins against Carlton and Bulldogs MFC went to Perth to play WCE. They were torn apart 16.21.117 to 8.4.52.

WCE then preceeded to journey over to the MCG and beat the Cats 20.23.143 to 8.15.63. An emphatic 80 point win and the flag.

There's the facts to counter your opinion. MFC were not good enough that year.

And I dont know why you raised 1994 as some link to an MFC failure re recruitment and development. Its another strawman.

(But FWIW, had we not had the crippling injuries and one or two other mishaps with players (eg Pike), MFC could have seriously challenged in 95 to 98. But thats history

[titan_uranus 25,014]

No I'm not I didn't bring up Miller, if you think I did then have a re read. Buckley is a 22 player at Collingwood so where does that fit him in to the Melbourne squad? Miller is playing for a bottom of the ladder club and good luck to him I didn't want Melbourne to keep him.

I'm not sweating any small stuff if you can't understand "example" then your problem is comprehension.

As Leigh Mathews just said on 3AW, Melbourne lack any Power Players and in his words that's a concern. He sighted Martin as a power player and said Trengove hasn't exactly jumped out of the box to show himself as an A grader. Before you go off your mind, I was happy that we got Trengove so don't come back with any bs about me wanting him gone.

BTW Fringe equals depth, do you think we have enough of that at the moment? If you do you're delusional.

Our fringe/depth is not an issue, it's the other end of the spectrum. We can shuffle the deckchairs as much as we want, if we're not getting anything from Green, Sylvia, Davey, Moloney, Frawley, Rivers and Jamar, we're not going to be competitive. Jamar, Rivers and Moloney are standing up; the others aren't.

Buckley made Collingwood's 22 in Round 1 as the 22nd player. You want to question that, fine, but you'd be wrong.

Buckley played OK in Round 1. Against Port Adelaide. For Collingwood. Hell, Addam Maric would have performed in those conditions. He held his spot for Round 2, then got dropped. He's played one more game since. He's not a star, but it's easy to look good when you're playing for the best side in the competition.

My point about Miller was that players get games at other clubs for various reasons.

Yes I can, Morton is a good player not a great player and that's all he will be. He's no special gift and certainly if he was in any of the last two drafts he wouldn't go top ten.

But he wasn't drafted in the last two years. So there you go again with your hindsight.

See once again you've got it wrong, who are the "and co" you refer to?

I mentioned Buckley as a player that has been given a chance at another club and has done well, the premier club no less. We have had a consistent history of failing to get the best out of our players he is just a small sample of that history. I would venture to say that any current MFC player would develop in to a better player and at a much more rapid rate than they would at Melbourne.

We have a history of failing to get the best out of what we have and that's why we consistently fail to reach the top, even though we have had some side with a fair amount of talent in them The 1994 side was stacked full of good players that my have been great given the right opportunity and the right coaching and development.

But you just keep on thinking that all's well, it's less stressful that way.

You keep calling me and others out on a lack of facts. It's not like you're brimming with them either. So if we can't factually prove that Morton or any other player we've drafted was expected to be picked where we picked them, can you prove that they weren't?

The rest of your post gets to the heart of the issue though: player development. Now this is a better argument. It's not the recruiters' fault if they have made an informed decision at the time: how can it be? But it can be the fault of the coaching staff, who have not done their best to get that player to reach the evident potential (and of course there is fault of the player as well).

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Buckley has played rds 1, 2 and 6 are hardly set the world on fire. If he looks betters its because the 21 blokes surrounding him at CFC are better than 21 blokes at MFC currently. Sorry about the facts.

Irony.

I am not sure what the relevance was of 1994 to the situation now or since then but in your need of facts I will help out.

WCE finished the home and away on top of the ladder with 16 wins and 6 losses. MFC finished 6th with 12 wins and 10 losses.

Despite an encouraging wins against Carlton and Bulldogs MFC went to Perth to play WCE. They were torn apart 16.21.117 to 8.4.52.

WCE then preceeded to journey over to the MCG and beat the Cats 20.23.143 to 8.15.63. An emphatic 80 point win and the flag.

There's the facts to counter your opinion. MFC were not good enough that year.

And I dont know why you raised 1994 as some link to an MFC failure re recruitment and development. Its another strawman.

(But FWIW, had we not had the crippling injuries and one or two other mishaps with players (eg Pike), MFC could have seriously challenged in 95 to 98. But thats history

You don't need to lecture me about the game in 94 I was there to watch it.

I still can't see where you've addd anything to this unless you consider Irony a solid contribution

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Our fringe/depth is not an issue, it's the other end of the spectrum. We can shuffle the deckchairs as much as we want, if we're not getting anything from Green, Sylvia, Davey, Moloney, Frawley, Rivers and Jamar, we're not going to be competitive. Jamar, Rivers and Moloney are standing up; the others aren't.

Buckley made Collingwood's 22 in Round 1 as the 22nd player. You want to question that, fine, but you'd be wrong.

Buckley played OK in Round 1. Against Port Adelaide. For Collingwood. Hell, Addam Maric would have performed in those conditions. He held his spot for Round 2, then got dropped. He's played one more game since. He's not a star, but it's easy to look good when you're playing for the best side in the competition.

My point about Miller was that players get games at other clubs for various reasons.

But he wasn't drafted in the last two years. So there you go again with your hindsight.

You keep calling me and others out on a lack of facts. It's not like you're brimming with them either. So if we can't factually prove that Morton or any other player we've drafted was expected to be picked where we picked them, can you prove that they weren't?

The rest of your post gets to the heart of the issue though: player development. Now this is a better argument. It's not the recruiters' fault if they have made an informed decision at the time: how can it be? But it can be the fault of the coaching staff, who have not done their best to get that player to reach the evident potential (and of course there is fault of the player as well).

I don't care about Buckley i raised him purely as an example of how we fail to get the best out of our players and i have never suggested he is a star, you got that? I could have just as easily said Jolly.

He was picked up by the premier club and he played in the first two games and was injured, he wasn't dropped, ok? Now You and Rhino suggest that he was the 22nd player picked, how do you know that? This is what I was talking about initially, you seem to be able to read minds, either that or you just guess and make it up.

I have never said I knew where anyone was going to get picked in the draft so I don't see why I have to back something I never said with facts that don't exist, you with me? Your comment was childish at best and at worst just plain stupid.

The players you mentioned are good players but I would hate to think how good they would have been or could be if they had proper coaching.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

Edited May 7, 2011 by RobbieF

[45HG 1,539]

Buckley made Collingwood's 22 in Round 1 as the 22nd player. You want to question that, fine, but you'd be wrong.

Buckley played OK in Round 1.

Well, he made the team as the 21st player. But he was trash in that game - even in a 75 point win.

He was ok in round 2 - in an 80+ point win. He was ok in round 6 - coming on as the 22nd player. You're right TU, he's playing a role in the team but it's hardly a crucial one.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

You don't need to lecture me about the game in 94 I was there to watch it.

Really??? So much for being good enough in 1994 to win the flag!!!

I still can't see where you've addd anything to this unless you consider Irony a solid contribution

Yeah. Sorry about the facts. I knew it would not make a dent.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Really??? So much for being good enough in 1994 to win the flag!!!

Yeah. Sorry about the facts. I knew it would not make a dent.

We had a very good side in 1994 it's a pity you never got to see them.

Part of the reasons for our abysmal performance over in Perth back then was the pathetic preparation prior to the game; the day before the players were wandering around the streets of Perth lost, finally finishing up in a Pinball parlour. I was astounded that the club didn't have something organised and structured for them to do, it was like they were on a little holiday. I blame the club for failing the players it was just a romp.

You know that all these years later we still have players that turn their toes up when the heat is applied. I have followed this club for over 50 years and I can assure you that despite there being different Players, Coaches, Committees and Presidents the same problems remain like some sort of cancerous thread that infiltrates the club year after year. You and some of the others can say this is nonsense but let me assure you that it's true.

Now care to point out some of your facts? I doubt I've ever come across a more hollow poster on this or any other site.

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,654]

Last four drafts...

Bit early to comdemn them I'd have thought.

I can remember RobbieF leading a chorus of posters about how we'd wasted a draft pick and how we should cut our losses and delist James Frawley after his second season.

[Little Goffy 14,524]

More than half of last year's best and fairest is either gone, injured, working back from injury, or simply well out of form.

Only Jamar, Moloney and Jones, of everyone 23+ at the start of the season, are in reasonable form at the moment.

The kids ain't the trouble. The recent recruiting ain't the trouble.

We're in a slump, a plain old horrible gut-wrenching slump.

It's not something many of our players, or even some of our coaching panel, have experienced - we've been so crap for four years that we haven't had a chance to have a slump - there's been nowhere to slump down to!

Slumps happen, and slumps end, how soon and how reliably is a measure of the club's culture.

I'm not watching Jack Darling with misty-eyes and hand-wringing, is all I'm saying.

[sylvinator 96]

More than half of last year's best and fairest is either gone, injured, working back from injury, or simply well out of form.

Only Jamar, Moloney and Jones, of everyone 23+ at the start of the season, are in reasonable form at the moment.

The kids ain't the trouble. The recent recruiting ain't the trouble.

We're in a slump, a plain old horrible gut-wrenching slump.

Never have truer words been spoken. Our poor form does NOT mean all our youngsters are duds, it is bc our senior guys are not performing.

Look at the list for 2010 Keith ‘Bluey’ Truscott Trophy Top 10:

1st Brad Green 295 votes

2nd James Frawley 277 votes

3rd Mark Jamar 231 votes

4th Aaron Davey 194 votes

5th Colin Sylvia 170 votes

6th Cameron Bruce 168 votes

7th Brent Moloney 166 votes

8th Tom Scully 154 votes

9th Colin Garland 149 votes

10th James McDonald 149 votes

This year, Bruce and McDonald are gone, Green and Davey are horribly out of form, Scully in injured, Frawley had no pre-season. That's 6 of our best 10 from last year.

With a young developing side, we need our senior guys to start, pulling their weight. Our youngster will make it in the end, we just have to be more patient.

A crop of Watts, Scully, Trengove, Gybserts, Tapscott, Jurrah, Grimes, Frawlye, Garland, Petterd, Morton, Blease, Bennel, Cook, Mckenzie + Viney will be the envy of the comp in 2 years. Why does that seem obvious to me and not other---- i've just named 15 guys who are still developing themselves as footballers all with great talent. And that's without mentioning Maric, Strauss, Nicolson, Evans, Howe, McDonald, Jetta etc.

People should realise how lucky we are that Schwab, Jimmy, Bailey and Conoley and Preders have steadfastly persued this rebuild. This site may be going into meltdown today, but we'll be thanking them all in years to come.

I predict that those who want Darling, Rich, Hurley etc for the immediate impact today, will be looking foolish in 2-3 years time when guys like Morton, Watts, Gysberts, Scully, Trengove etc are finally ready to dominate the competition, when we ARE ACTUALLY READY TO COMPETE FOR A FLAG.

Edited May 7, 2011 by sylvinator

[Range Rover 1,935]

What's a concern here and is not being discussed is that it's not in a recruiter's self-interest to opt early for a guy like Darling. Yes, he's got many attributes to be a star, but because of his advanced physical development you're going to know comparatively quickly whether he's going to cut the mustard. or not.

That's no good for a recruiter from a purely self-interested point of view. If Darling struggles early the spotlight is immediately on you. Why take the risk of copping that heat when you can select the skinny kid who'll need five years in the gym before anyone can make a serious call on him.

It's a decision that's worth a few extra years on the club payroll. That's not having a go at Prendergast (or any other recruiter) but just pointing out a genuine flaw in the system. That's their livelihood for Godsakes.

Of course they're going to then talk up this furphy about Darling being a 'headcase' and encourage publicity about his 'indiscretions'. It's an out for them down the track when discussions like this take place.

Meanwhile, we as supporters have to continually swallow this word 'development' and just cop it that we haven't got a decent pack.marking forward with a bit of arrogance and mongrel.

Too bad that this is EXACTLY THE TYPE OF PLAYER WE ARE CRYING OUT FOR!

[sylvinator 96]

That's no good for a recruiter from a purely self-interested point of view. If Darling struggles early the spotlight is immediately on you. Why take the risk of copping that heat when you can select the skinny kid who'll need five years in the gym before anyone can make a serious call on him.

Interesting that I look at the exact same set of facts you describe and form the polar opposite opinion.

To my mind, if a recruiter sees a player fully developed vs. a player that may take a few years to develop, it will naturally be in their best interest to take the fully developed player. That player will have an immediate impact at AFL and then the recruiter can point to his employer, with evidence that his players picked are already producing

However the better recruiter does not recruit for 1-2 years, he recruits for 10-12 years. In any profession, thinking medium to long term is always critical.

Any Joe Blo would have known that Daniel Rich was going to burst onto the AFL scene. And he did in a big way, winning Rising Star award, kicking 65m bullets to Jonno Brown and gaining accolades from the media.

However Prenders chose Watts. A 17 years old in VCE who would take 3-4 years at least before being fully developed. In those 3-4 years, as has proven true, Watts would be ridiculed by the media as a 'failed pick' and a 'dud not worthy of number 1'. That reflects badly on Prenders. Do you not think Prenders knew that the criticism would come as Watts built his skills and his body?

Will every pick of Prenders be perfect in hindsite? Definitely not. who can be? Darling was passed by every AFL club.

BUT... overall Prendergast has drafted for the future, and we will be happy he did so in 2-3 years. Bookmark it.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Interesting that I look at the exact same set of facts you describe and form the polar opposite opinion.

To my mind, if a recruiter sees a player fully developed vs. a player that may take a few years to develop, it will naturally be in their best interest to take the fully developed player. That player will have an immediate impact at AFL and then the recruiter can point to his employer, with evidence that his players picked are already producing

The downside being that the devloped player may prove a fizzer in the cauldron of senior AFL footy. In which case, the recruiter is under the pump immediately ... not in his best interests at all.

However the better recruiter does not recruit for 1-2 years, he recruits for 10-12 years. In any profession, thinking medium to long term is always critical.

Why can't he recruit for both? Darling is a player for the now AND for the long term 10 - 12 year period.

Any Joe Blo would have known that Daniel Rich was going to burst onto the AFL scene. And he did in a big way, winning Rising Star award, kicking 65m bullets to Jonno Brown and gaining accolades from the media.

However Prenders chose Watts. A 17 years old in VCE who would take 3-4 years at least before being fully developed. In those 3-4 years, as has proven true, Watts would be ridiculed by the media as a 'failed pick' and a 'dud not worthy of number 1'. That reflects badly on Prenders. Do you not think Prenders knew that the criticism would come as Watts built his skills and his body?

Yes, but he can wear that short-term criticism knowing that he has the fallback trump card of 'development' that he can drop on the table anytime someone questions his selections, particularly of key position players.

Will every pick of Prenders be perfect in hindsite? Definitely not. who can be? Darling was passed by every AFL club.

BUT... overall Prendergast has drafted for the future, and we will be happy he did so in 2-3 years. Bookmark it.

I'm not really concerned what other clubs do with their recruiting. Just ours. And there appears to be a trend of picking tall, skinny rangy types who are going to 'take time'.

Cook may well turn out to be a good player. I hope he does. But Darling is already a good player, of a type that we desperately need.

It;s all moot of course, but I do question the decision and I think judging from the interest in the thread (and the 7-page thread on Darling) many other posters do as well.

[titan_uranus 25,014]

I don't care about Buckley i raised him purely as an example of how we fail to get the best out of our players and i have never suggested he is a star, you got that? I could have just as easily said Jolly.

He was picked up by the premier club and he played in the first two games and was injured, he wasn't dropped, ok? Now You and Rhino suggest that he was the 22nd player picked, how do you know that? This is what I was talking about initially, you seem to be able to read minds, either that or you just guess and make it up.

I have never said I knew where anyone was going to get picked in the draft so I don't see why I have to back something I never said with facts that don't exist, you with me? Your comment was childish at best and at worst just plain stupid.

The players you mentioned are good players but I would hate to think how good they would have been or could be if they had proper coaching.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

You know what's funniest about all this: you now seem to agree with my initial contention: that the problem is not the recruiters, that we should not be blaming the recruiters using hindsight. But you're so stubborn you won't acknowledge that.

What's a concern here and is not being discussed is that it's not in a recruiter's self-interest to opt early for a guy like Darling. Yes, he's got many attributes to be a star, but because of his advanced physical development you're going to know comparatively quickly whether he's going to cut the mustard. or not.

That's no good for a recruiter from a purely self-interested point of view. If Darling struggles early the spotlight is immediately on you. Why take the risk of copping that heat when you can select the skinny kid who'll need five years in the gym before anyone can make a serious call on him.

It's a decision that's worth a few extra years on the club payroll. That's not having a go at Prendergast (or any other recruiter) but just pointing out a genuine flaw in the system. That's their livelihood for Godsakes.

Of course they're going to then talk up this furphy about Darling being a 'headcase' and encourage publicity about his 'indiscretions'. It's an out for them down the track when discussions like this take place.

Meanwhile, we as supporters have to continually swallow this word 'development' and just cop it that we haven't got a decent pack.marking forward with a bit of arrogance and mongrel.

Too bad that this is EXACTLY THE TYPE OF PLAYER WE ARE CRYING OUT FOR!

Rubbish.

We are not challenging for a premiership this year. That was never the case. So why would we pick someone purely because they have the body to play in 2011?

Moreover, Darling had question marks over his attitude.

I don't understand how you whingers continually ignore the fact that none of the clubs took him. It wasn't just us. So it wasn't like we passed on him at 12 and he was taken at 13 by a club in a similar position to us. He was taken after all the clubs had already had a chance to take him, but hadn't. Surely, for someone who all you whingers rate so darn highly, that must say something.

[Theo 272]

We had a very good side in 1994 it's a pity you never got to see them.

Part of the reasons for our abysmal performance over in Perth back then was the pathetic preparation prior to the game; the day before the players were wandering around the streets of Perth lost, finally finishing up in a Pinball parlour. I was astounded that the club didn't have something organised and structured for them to do, it was like they were on a little holiday. I blame the club for failing the players it was just a romp.

You know that all these years later we still have players that turn their toes up when the heat is applied. I have followed this club for over 50 years and I can assure you that despite there being different Players, Coaches, Committees and Presidents the same problems remain like some sort of cancerous thread that infiltrates the club year after year. You and some of the others can say this is nonsense but let me assure you that it's true.

Now care to point out some of your facts? I doubt I've ever come across a more hollow poster on this or any other site.

I have also followed this club for over 50 years and seen some great players in the red and blue. However, this club has been treading water for years, even the great Ron Barassi couldn't lift this club off the bottom of the ladder.

There are probably many reasons for this including poor facilities, poor player development, poor administration and possibly poor coaching. I cannot really comment on how this has affected team performance, all I know is that we have not had enough good footballers to win us a premiership.

The last 10 years has been more than frustrating with insipid performances against sides we should beat and usually better performances against good sides when we have our backs to the wall. There have been too many times when the team has not turned up to play. I remember Brad Greem saying after the West Coast and North games last year that the team didn't turn up to play. I hated that comment because this has been going on for years. It doesn't happen at the top clubs, if they lose it's generally a hard fought loss. Not us, we usually capitulate early and fight back (sometimes) when the game is as good as gone.

I have no knowledge on whether the players are developed properly, or whether they play for the coach or eat pizza every night, all I know is we have not had enough good players at any one time to be a top team and a consistantly good performing team.

To me 90% of our success or failure comes down to recruiting. We had a far better team in the 1990's with Lyon, Viney, Schwartz, Jackovich, the Lovetts than we do now. They at least had a red hot go most of the time but our depth was not quite strong enough.

At the moment our team is made of mainly average to good footballers that don't work hard enough or for eachother. Some may well become good footballers, only time will tell.

In my view our recruiting strategy and list management are the areas that need looking at the most. We do not have a well balanced team. There are too many light weight undersized players with no x-factor. We have no powerful players, our key position players overall are more flanker types rather than genuine strong bodied KP players.

We are a very poor contested marking team, Rivers is a good mark but not in a contested situation. Jurrah is probably the best but is not consistent enough.

I spoke to Dean Bailey at pre-season training before Watts was drafted and suggested we need more strong bodied KP types, he said vehemently that midfielders win matches. The focus under Bailey has been midfielders or mid sized players. Not key position players. That is why they selected, Strauss, Bennell and Jetta when they could easily have drafted McKernan or J.Trengove. I think we really stuffed up in 2008 when there were so many class players available after the Blease pick at 17. I know it has been said before but I do think we play it too safe at draft time. It may well be a case of paralysis by analysis instead of just going for bloody good natural footballers.

List management is also a problem. The club had few players coming out of contract in 2010 and I think they did this on purpose because of GC raping the draft. It backfired somewhat having to free up spots on the list and ultimately acrimonously delisting the Captain. The same problem is likely to happen this year with only 10 players out of contract the majority of who are the never-ending developing types in Fat-Fitzpartick, Gawn but not gone, Scully, Morton, Maric, Martin, Sylvia, Warnock and Wona. Delisting 3 of these players at least may not go down well with some supporters and the playing group. Wona is an interesting one as he has close ties with Jurrah and the other brodders.

His delisting maynot be a good strategy.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Rubbish.

We are not challenging for a premiership this year. That was never the case. So why would we pick someone purely because they have the body to play in 2011?

Who says Darling won't be a 10-12 year player? You're actually getting a player who will provide you with three or four more years of quality football.

Moreover, Darling had question marks over his attitude.

Yep doesn't pass the 'bad table manners' rule seemingly. Tut tut.

I don't understand how you whingers continually ignore the fact that none of the clubs took him. It wasn't just us. So it wasn't like we passed on him at 12 and he was taken at 13 by a club in a similar position to us. He was taken after all the clubs had already had a chance to take him, but hadn't. Surely, for someone who all you whingers rate so darn highly, that must say something.

The difference between us and the other clubs who passed on him was this guy was priority one in terms of what we needed on our list.

By your logic why have recruiters at all? Just get them all to agree who the top 50 players are in the draft and then auto-select them in order of draft sequence.

The argument I set out about it being in a recruiters self-interest to opt for 'development' players over ready made types has merit. Take your blinkers off.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Let me summarise this thread by saying that with some of our picks we have exceeded expectations and others have disappointed a little to date, while others have performed as expected.

Much like the other 15 clubs over the last few years.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Let me summarise this thread by saying that with some of our picks we have exceeded expectations and others have disappointed a little to date, while others have performed as expected.

Much like the other 15 clubs over the last few years.

Almost. You need to add that in order to win a premiership our recruiting is going to have to exceed that of the bulk of the other clubs.

It's not good enough to simply accept that and fall back on the old "you win some, you lose some" rhetoric.

I'm glad the club is putting this area of the FD under the microscope. I hope they make a blunt and honest assessment about because it's an area where we are deficient.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

When casting a critical eye over our list it becomes a matter of opinion.

It is my opinion that we have a strong list and that the talent is there. This should be the best list we have had for 15 years at least.

It then becomes a question of whether the talent is being

A) Developed appropriately in the physical and mental aspects of the game

B) Given appropriate leadership on the ground and off it

C) Being coached correctly ie. to a game style which can defeat good sides, with players being played in position according to strengths and weaknessses and with a chance to develop, and playing in-form and physically fit condition footballers.

These things all being co-dependent and factors which affect intensity levels, training commitment and team culture.

Whether we are achieving these aims to the optimum are the big ?? at the moment. As of today I would say that we would be below expecations in these areas at this point in the season. There is a long way to go but the next 5 or 6 weeks will give us a much better gauge as to the overall health of the Footy Dept.

[sylvinator 96]

Let me guess, suddenly all our youngsters are superstars again. This site is hilarious sometimes.

The method of our rebuild and past 3-4 years has been excellent. A bit of patience is required, but in 2-3 years we will be a force.

Will people stop making judgments week to week, and for goodness sakes, try to look at the bigger picture. Because it looks pretty good!