A few things. Every recruiter knew that Darling would do this, he is a ready made forward. The reason he went so low is he is a loose cannon and has a reputation of terrible off field behaviour. If you've noticed Melbourne drafts a certain breed of young men and Martin, like Darling definatly didnt fit into that category. Last year everyone was talking about Scully and Trengove, Martin was the 'other guy'. Now Scully is injured and Trengrove has no midfield around him and Martin has popped up. Let him have his fun. No one would have picked Martin at 2. No one. Not even Richmond.

And for the other examples; Hurley, Fyfe, Hill. They have been good. Just like the 2001 draft of Montanga, Mitchell, Swan, Ablett, Ball, Judd and Hodge they are all good plyers. Will Tapscott be better than Fyfe - we dont know yet. Will Watts be better than Hurley - who knows. We took the players we believed will take us to a premiership and on their 'potential' and Under 18 form. Fyfe didnt fire but Tappy did.

But I ask you this, is Hodge (who went no.1) that much better than Mitchell (who went n.35)? My point is these boys are only 2nd year players (Watts and Blease and in that category). We're going to have to give them one more before we call for their heads.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/6125234/teen-footy-star-caught-in-camp-romp/

Re: Blease. Not that it means much but a few senior Bomber aquaintances of mine were upset they didn't get him in draft & rated him as a "gonna be gun" with huge wraps. Takes a young body a while to get over an injury like that and a couple more to build into man size for the rigours of this game....also in his head too (confidence wise). I'm very patient on Blease givn his injury, but also hangin out to see what he's got B)

My lord, you just cannot understand a fair and logical argument when you see one.

I'll answer your question, then you can answer mine.

I have no idea who the recruiters were who had big wraps on some of the players we selected. That would be because you don't see recruiters telling people what they think. So the next best thing would be to get a general idea of what people in AFL circles (e.g. fans, journalists etc.) think. I did that, but you don't like that. So be it.

Now to my question: Is it fair for you to criticise recruiting decisions with the benefit of hindsight?

Hindsight is a great thing. However, as supporters that is all we have as we have no say in recruitment. The fact is the club is struggling on field and there has to be a question mark over the recruiting. The continued inconsistency over many years must point to recruitment, at least in some form. First round selections in Bell, Nick Smith, Molan and McLean didn't help. Bate and Dunn are in and out of the side. Buckley was traded. Strauss, Maric, Jetta, Bennell and Morton haven't come on. Blease may or may not make it.

There are simply too many questionmarks over players the majority of which were top 20 selections.

List management is also a concern. This year (according to Bigfooty) we have the following players out of contract Gawn, Maric, Wona, Sylvia, Scully, Morton, Fitzpatrick, and Martin. We have to delist 3 players. Who would you delist? Maybe one may agree to go on the rookie list like they did with PJ and Newton. It would appear that Maric and Wona are definately under the pump. Sylvia or Morton could be traded to open up positions. It does not give the club much room to move. The same thing happened last year by telling Junior to retire to free up a position for the ND.

Hindsight is a great thing. However, as supporters that is all we have as we have no say in recruitment. The fact is the club is struggling on field and there has to be a question mark over the recruiting. The continued inconsistency over many years must point to recruitment, at least in some form. First round selections in Bell, Nick Smith, Molan and McLean didn't help. Bate and Dunn are in and out of the side. Buckley was traded. Strauss, Maric, Jetta, Bennell and Morton haven't come on. Blease may or may not make it.

There are simply too many questionmarks over players the majority of which were top 20 selections.

List management is also a concern. This year (according to Bigfooty) we have the following players out of contract Gawn, Maric, Wona, Sylvia, Scully, Morton, Fitzpatrick, and Martin. We have to delist 3 players. Who would you delist? Maybe one may agree to go on the rookie list like they did with PJ and Newton. It would appear that Maric and Wona are definately under the pump. Sylvia or Morton could be traded to open up positions. It does not give the club much room to move. The same thing happened last year by telling Junior to retire to free up a position for the ND.

Supporters should not expect to have a say in recruitment and should not use it as a justification to overdose on hindsight for a false sense of knowing.

When a team is struggling on the field all areas of football operations and other areas should be exmained. The inconsistencies over many years point to a number of issues not just recruitment.

You need to assess each recruit rather than make a blanket and erroneous assumption. In addition the players you quoted were recruited by Cameron who is now at Richmond. It is a different recruiting team now.

Newton and Meeson were rookied. Essentially, as a guide, you would normally have about 1/3 of your list coming out of contract every year. Are you sure Big Footy has the correct information. Trading players does not open up positions on your list because you still have to reduce your list by 3 players. There are ways and means of achieving that outcome. Just on the list you have...Maric is seriously under the pump.

Supporters should not expect to have a say in recruitment and should not use it as a justification to overdose on hindsight for a false sense of knowing.

When a team is struggling on the field all areas of football operations and other areas should be exmained. The inconsistencies over many years point to a number of issues not just recruitment.

You need to assess each recruit rather than make a blanket and erroneous assumption. In addition the players you quoted were recruited by Cameron who is now at Richmond. It is a different recruiting team now.

Newton and Meeson were rookied. Essentially, as a guide, you would normally have about 1/3 of your list coming out of contract every year. Are you sure Big Footy has the correct information. Trading players does not open up positions on your list because you still have to reduce your list by 3 players. There are ways and means of achieving that outcome. Just on the list you have...Maric is seriously under the pump.

Can we question the recruiting at all? Are we allowed to wonder why our midfielders look up year after year and see a forward line totally bereft of a strong, leading marking forward?

Are we allowed to question the seeming policy of not picking an obvious gun because he doesn't hold his knife and fork properly or mind his p's and q's on school camp?

The additional issues Theo outlined above are also on the money and it's high time the spotlight was cast on not just Prendergast, but the the whole FD as to why these players haven't/aren't measuring up.

There are plenty of "you tube highlights" available for the journos to get their "big wraps" from, I certainly don't think a Recruiter is going to let these parasites know who they are going to pick and in what order.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/mark-stevenss-draft-predictions/story-e6frf9jf-1225794866053

As you can see from this article written by Mark Stevens he has talked to every recruiter and whilst you are definitely right in that none would divulge their strategies on the upcoming draft you would expect that innocuous questions would be posed to the recruiters so the journo can put the jigsaw together. For example for the 2010 draft we know that Geelong/WB/Port would not say who they wanted to pick but they would be quite forthcoming on who they thought the order of the top 6 picks would be considering they didnt have a pick inside the top 12. Do you think that the Geelong recruiter would have had a problem nominating the Scully/Trengove/Martin as 123 considering their first pick was at 17 ! Ask enough questions of all the recruiters and you can form a good pattern as to who should fall where.

Supporters should not expect to have a say in recruitment and should not use it as a justification to overdose on hindsight for a false sense of knowing.

When a team is struggling on the field all areas of football operations and other areas should be exmained. The inconsistencies over many years point to a number of issues not just recruitment.

You need to assess each recruit rather than make a blanket and erroneous assumption. In addition the players you quoted were recruited by Cameron who is now at Richmond. It is a different recruiting team now.

Newton and Meeson were rookied. Essentially, as a guide, you would normally have about 1/3 of your list coming out of contract every year. Are you sure Big Footy has the correct information. Trading players does not open up positions on your list because you still have to reduce your list by 3 players. There are ways and means of achieving that outcome. Just on the list you have...Maric is seriously under the pump.

I don't care who recruited these players, the fact is they aren't performing. There maybe reasons for this i.e don't like the coach or game plan or they don't get along with teammates. Who knows. I don't really care. Maybe, just maybe they aren't good enough. A Bigfooty thread indicates that there is dishormony in the playing group with players getting games when not in form and cliques within the group and no faith in the gameplan.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=822161

Something has to be done to get this team performing. I'm sick of excuses.

I understand Warnock is also out of contract this year, he will be cut unless he starts performing.

As thrilled as he will be to grab Grant, Clayton says he rates Morton the equal of Kreuzer and Cotchin.

"He will be a gift at four for Melbourne if it happens as expected," Clayton says.

"He's as big a gift at four as Grant is at five."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/plan-a-with-help/story-e6frf9nx-1111114960780

"He will be a gift at four for Melbourne if it happens as expected," (Scott) Clayton says.

"He's as big a gift at four as Grant is at five."

Guess he got that wrong.

There's a reason 16 clubs passed on Darling. He's a headcase.

And you know this how?

My lord, you just cannot understand a fair and logical argument when you see one.

I'll answer your question, then you can answer mine.

I have no idea who the recruiters were who had big wraps on some of the players we selected. That would be because you don't see recruiters telling people what they think. So the next best thing would be to get a general idea of what people in AFL circles (e.g. fans, journalists etc.) think. I did that, but you don't like that. So be it.

Now to my question: Is it fair for you to criticise recruiting decisions with the benefit of hindsight?

The recruiters are there to do a job and if they fail in that job then it's right to criticise them. If they consistently fail to pick up the right types or the best players and the club finishes up with a heap of top 20 selections that are too soft or simply not good enough then they should be sacked.

I know you don't have very high standards but I do and if I ran my business the way they do their department than I'd be out looking for a job and that's how it should be. You seem to think that they should be forgiven for consistent failure but I don't.

That's one of the differences between you and I, fortunately not the only one.

If we want to recruit based on big wraps from Journos and BigFooty why bother with a recruiting department at all?

Nutbean naively suggested that the recruiters are prepared to share info with journalists without being specific, yeah right Im sure they do.

Anyway I've expressed my view and if you don't like it too bad, I'm not going to continue to go over the same ground, time will tell if we have the best or possibly the worst recruiter in the game.

And you know this how?

He had some off field trouble last year unlike Sylvia,Moloney,Ward,Ox etc.

Martin for Trengove

Darling for Cook

Mckernan for Strauss

Hurley for Watts

Hannebery/Beams for Blease

Dangerfield/Rioli for Morton

When we drafted who we did,those to the left were available,OUCH!

I'd take all those right now

He had some off field trouble last year unlike Sylvia,Moloney,Ward,Ox etc.

Martin for Trengove

Darling for Cook

Mckernan for Strauss

Hurley for Watts

Hannebery/Beams for Blease

Dangerfield/Rioli for Morton

When we drafted who we did,those to the left were available,OUCH!

I'd take all those right now

Hmmmmm interesting interpetation there. Trengove and Morton are both ahead of Sylvia at the same stages of their careers, so do you want to scrap Sylvia as well as he was sh1te early on?

Cannot see how we would regret Scully and trengove on what i have seen so far. The football world would have told you Watts would be behind Hurley yet most would have picked Watts first.

We start playing well as a team and watch these blokes come up in the rankings.

if you were our head of 'respective' recruitment you would have Palmer and Rich as captain and vice captain.

Nutbean naively suggested that the recruiters are prepared to share info with journalists without being specific, yeah right I’m sure they do.

I'm glad you agree - but please leave out naively and replace the word suggested with stated - two articles quoted in this thread do in fact show exactly what I stated - that recruiters do talk to journalists and give informatation with varying degrees of specificity. ( never like to say the word fact but how can you dispute this when the two articles here clearly quote recruiters sharing information with a journalist???). Just google afl draft and recruiters and see the dozens of articles where recruiters are talking to the press. Matt Rendell (Adelaide) spoke on the radio for 14 minutes on different players and what might be available at Adelaides pick 13. One of the recruiters with later picks said that all the early picks in the 2009 draft would be midfielders. There are articles stating that clubs think that Darling will slip down the order and also John Butcher from the previous draft. methinks it is not me who is being naive.

My concern is not as to whether they are recruiting correctly as there is ample evidence provided that we are paying the right currency for our draft picks ( with a couple of exceptions ). My main concern lies in whether we are developing them properly. We have not had a genuine superstar since Robbie Flower. Why is that ?

He had some off field trouble last year unlike Sylvia,Moloney,Ward,Ox etc.

Martin for Trengove

Darling for Cook

Mckernan for Strauss

Hurley for Watts

Hannebery/Beams for Blease

Dangerfield/Rioli for Morton

When we drafted who we did,those to the left were available,OUCH!

I'd take all those right now

While you are at - tattslotto numbers for tomorrow night please

Robbief - this is too funny

http://www.sportal.com.au/afl-news-display/tigers-reveal-pick-102439

The Richmond recruiter didnt have to talk journo's about whether they were going to pick Reece Conca. They published it on their website, welcoming Conca to the club BEFORE THE DRAFT.

Robbief - this is too funny

http://www.sportal.com.au/afl-news-display/tigers-reveal-pick-102439

The Richmond recruiter didnt have to talk journo's about whether they were going to pick Reece Conca. They published it on their website, welcoming Conca to the club BEFORE THE DRAFT.

How many other ones like that do you have? How many kids were drafted in last year's draft?

I'm glad you agree - but please leave out naively and replace the word suggested with stated - two articles quoted in this thread do in fact show exactly what I stated - that recruiters do talk to journalists and give informatation with varying degrees of specificity. ( never like to say the word fact but how can you dispute this when the two articles here clearly quote recruiters sharing information with a journalist???). Just google afl draft and recruiters and see the dozens of articles where recruiters are talking to the press. Matt Rendell (Adelaide) spoke on the radio for 14 minutes on different players and what might be available at Adelaides pick 13. One of the recruiters with later picks said that all the early picks in the 2009 draft would be midfielders. There are articles stating that clubs think that Darling will slip down the order and also John Butcher from the previous draft. methinks it is not me who is being naive.

My concern is not as to whether they are recruiting correctly as there is ample evidence provided that we are paying the right currency for our draft picks ( with a couple of exceptions ). My main concern lies in whether we are developing them properly. We have not had a genuine superstar since Robbie Flower. Why is that ?

I don't doubt that clubs talk to Journos and I don't doubt that they tell them exactly what they want them to hear.

I also recognise that our development has been crap over the years and this concerns me as well, we either have really poor recruiting or really poor development or a bit of both, either way it cannot continue we have to stop the rot. We couldn't find a place for Buckley and yet he get's a game every week in the premier side.

He had some off field trouble last year unlike Sylvia,Moloney,Ward,Ox etc.

Martin for Trengove

Darling for Cook

Mckernan for Strauss

Hurley for Watts

Hannebery/Beams for Blease

Dangerfield/Rioli for Morton

When we drafted who we did,those to the left were available,OUCH!

I'd take all those right now

You wanna prove my point some more?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Yes, right now, there won't be too many supporters who would say no to trading Morton for Rioli, or Blease for Hannebery (although I dispute your veiled suggestion that we should have taken Martin before Trengove, Darling before Cook (who hasn't had any chance yet to prove himself!) or Hurley before Watts). But at the time of the draft, Morton was clearly rated better than the other two. So why are we whinging about us having taken Morton when that was what was expected?

We couldn't find a place for Buckley and yet he get's a game every week in the premier side.

He's played 3 out of 6. Not exactly 'every week'. And he's only been there due to injuries/poor form of others (Blease, Macaffer, Krakoeur). Not because he's been dominating.

Miller's getting a game for Richmond too. Gee, I really wish we'd kept him now.

You wanna prove my point some more?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Yes, right now, there won't be too many supporters who would say no to trading Morton for Rioli, or Blease for Hannebery (although I dispute your veiled suggestion that we should have taken Martin before Trengove, Darling before Cook (who hasn't had any chance yet to prove himself!) or Hurley before Watts). But at the time of the draft, Morton was clearly rated better than the other two. So why are we whinging about us having taken Morton when that was what was expected?

He's played 3 out of 6. Not exactly 'every week'. And he's only been there due to injuries/poor form of others (Blease, Macaffer, Krakoeur). Not because he's been dominating.

Miller's getting a game for Richmond too. Gee, I really wish we'd kept him now.

Buckley missed games because of injury and was straight back, Miller plays for Richmond in case you hadn't noticed, not current premiers Collingwood; if miller was getting a game for Collingwood I would be very concerned.

Wouldn't you?

Buckley missed games because of injury and was straight back, Miller plays for Richmond in case you hadn't noticed, not current premiers Collingwood; if miller was getting a game for Collingwood I would be very concerned.

Wouldn't you?

Miller and Buckley are the 22nd player in their respective sides and are at best fringe players. We have enough of those at MFC without creating a stockpile.

Now you are sweating the small stuff.

Miller and Buckley are the 22nd player in their respective sides and are at best fringe players. We have enough of those at MFC without creating a stockpile.

Now you are sweating the small stuff.

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.

Hmmmmm interesting interpetation there. Trengove and Morton are both ahead of Sylvia at the same stages of their careers, so do you want to scrap Sylvia as well as he was sh1te early on?

Cannot see how we would regret Scully and trengove on what i have seen so far. The football world would have told you Watts would be behind Hurley yet most would have picked Watts first.

We start playing well as a team and watch these blokes come up in the rankings.

if you were our head of 'respective' recruitment you would have Palmer and Rich as captain and vice captain.

Silvia in my opinion goes missing too much,. has the skills cant be bothered it seems- a real prima donna we have too many of his type he should have been traded allready only MFC puts up with crap like that

Guess he got that wrong.

You can't say that yet

You can't say that yet

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.

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

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.