In light of all the discussion regarding leadership (or lacke thereof) at our club, I thought it would be interesting to compare our list to those of the recent benchmarks, Geelong, Hawthorn and Collingwood. Specifically, I am interested in the timing of their recruiting and how they managed to generate such a strong spread of quality players across the spectrum of ages - something we clearly lack.

In both the Geelong and Collingwood examples, the clubs have traded for mature talent that have helped bring them closer to flag success (Mooney, Ottens at the Cats and Jolly and Ball at Collingwood). What is interesting to note when you consider the recruiting of these clubs however, is that the successful recruiting has typically gone in waves. By that I mean that they had two distinct drafting periods that enabled the club to harvest a group of leaders at the time the next batch of guns were coming through.

In Geelong's case, they had 2 distinct periods, albeit reasonably close together, where they drafted an enormous amount of talent. In 1998-99, they drafted Scarlett, Corey, Chapman, Ling and Enright to add to guys like Milburn who they had acquired shortly before. The next wave for them was only a couple of years later but they managed to acquire Bartel, Kelly, Stevie J and Gary Ablett in 2001.

Hawthorn similarly had two waves. In 2001 they drafted the core of their premiership leadership group in Hodge, Campbell Brown and Sam Mitchell. Three years later, they had their second wave in Roughead, Franklin and Lewis.

Collingwood were similar to Hawthorn. In 2000-02, they drafted Didak, Swan and Maxwell. In 2004-5 they added Cloke, Thomas and Pendlebury.

The question this poses in my mind is where are we in terms of our waves? In 2003-04, we had a golden opportunity to draft our first wave but squandered an enormous number of those picks. Of Sylvia, Mclean, CJ, Bate, Dunn, Newton and Davey only two are regulars. We also got Moloney at this time but had to swap Scott Thompson so its a nil all draw. Our first successful tilt was probably 2005-06 where we collected Jones, Frawley, Petterd and Garland. Our next wave is hopefully the 2007-2009 crop.

What that means I don't know for sure, but if you look at the precedents it seems to confirm what most on here still suspect. Generally, it takes around 8-10 years from your first wave to be in flag contention which brings us to the middle of this decade. No surprises that this is when several of our young guns will be at the age where they are truly leaders of the club.

In light of all the discussion regarding leadership (or lacke thereof) at our club, I thought it would be interesting to compare our list to those of the recent benchmarks, Geelong, Hawthorn and Collingwood. Specifically, I am interested in the timing of their recruiting and how they managed to generate such a strong spread of quality players across the spectrum of ages - something we clearly lack.

In both the Geelong and Collingwood examples, the clubs have traded for mature talent that have helped bring them closer to flag success (Mooney, Ottens at the Cats and Jolly and Ball at Collingwood). What is interesting to note when you consider the recruiting of these clubs however, is that the successful recruiting has typically gone in waves. By that I mean that they had two distinct drafting periods that enabled the club to harvest a group of leaders at the time the next batch of guns were coming through.

In Geelong's case, they had 2 distinct periods, albeit reasonably close together, where they drafted an enormous amount of talent. In 1998-99, they drafted Scarlett, Corey, Chapman, Ling and Enright to add to guys like Milburn who they had acquired shortly before. The next wave for them was only a couple of years later but they managed to acquire Bartel, Kelly, Stevie J and Gary Ablett in 2001.

Hawthorn similarly had two waves. In 2001 they drafted the core of their premiership leadership group in Hodge, Campbell Brown and Sam Mitchell. Three years later, they had their second wave in Roughead, Franklin and Lewis.

Collingwood were similar to Hawthorn. In 2000-02, they drafted Didak, Swan and Maxwell. In 2004-5 they added Cloke, Thomas and Pendlebury.

The question this poses in my mind is where are we in terms of our waves? In 2003-04, we had a golden opportunity to draft our first wave but squandered an enormous number of those picks. Of Sylvia, Mclean, CJ, Bate, Dunn, Newton and Davey only two are regulars. We also got Moloney at this time but had to swap Scott Thompson so its a nil all draw. Our first successful tilt was probably 2005-06 where we collected Jones, Frawley, Petterd and Garland. Our next wave is hopefully the 2007-2009 crop.

What that means I don't know for sure, but if you look at the precedents it seems to confirm what most on here still suspect. Generally, it takes around 8-10 years from your first wave to be in flag contention which brings us to the middle of this decade. No surprises that this is when several of our young guns will be at the age where they are truly leaders of the club.

It does depend though. Our draft wave is slightly different to both of those you've mentioned, and I honestly prefer looking at the list ages themselves. While it doesn't perfectly fit to a couple of players (in particular Stef Martin) for the bulk of the list it does seem to work rather well in terms of working out where they're at.

PS: This list is based off how old they would have been at the START of this year.

27+ (-1983): Green, Davey, Jamar, Campbell (Rook) (3+1r)

24-26 (1984-86): Moloney, Warnock, Joel Macdonald, Rivers, Sylvia, Martin (6)

22-23 (1987-88): Dunn, Bate, Jones, Bartram, Garland, Bail, Petterd, Frawley, Jurrah, Wonnameiri, Newton (10+1r)

20-21 (1989-90): Grimes, Spencer, Morton, Jetta, Maric, Bennell, Strauss, McKenzie, Howe, McNamara, Nicholson (9+2r)

19 (1991): Blease, Watts, Scully, Gysberts, Fitzpatrick, Tapscott, Trengove, Gawn (8)

18 (1992): Cook, Davis, McDonald, Johnstone, Evans, Lawrence (3+3r)

That is an incredibly youth weighted squad still. Look at some of the players we criticise. Cale Morton is 21. 'Senior players' such as Dunn, Bate, Jones and Bartram are only 23. Watts is only 20. Scully and Trengove the same. Gawn is still 19, McKenzie is 20.

While I know we have to look at a deadwood cull eventually, we still do have an incredibly junior squad really. I know it's no excuse, heart and all that, but at the same time, I just wonder...

Nevertheless, you do make good points regarding the drafting and such.

Edited May 16, 201114 yr by Striker475

It does depend though. Our draft wave is slightly different to both of those you've mentioned, and I honestly prefer looking at the list ages themselves.

So do I.

What's relevant is how much you're losing because guys are 'past it' or retiring versus how much you're gaining in players 'coming on'.

Most teams battle to develop a crop of players quickly enough to link up with an older bunch before they retire, but we won't really have that problem.

I agree with both of your comments, however the point I am making is that it would appear to be necessary to draft a key group of players that become your leaders a long way in advance of when you challenge for a flag. If we'd drafted well when we had the opportunity in 2003, we'd probably be approaching our premiership window now. Unfortunately, we topped up with far too many payers like Pickett, Holland, Vardy etc. at the expense of long term development.

There is no doubt that the current Melbourne list is youth-wighted, but that in some ways is my point. The older guys in our team are probably not "past it" but there are too few of them and the talent pool is too thin for us to be truly competitive right now. The bulk of our talent, and in reality the bulk of our starting 18 any given week, is 23 and under. They are a promising group, but the realit is we're unlikely to see true success until the first batch of these guys is 26 or 27. Originally most of us probably thought that when we were starting to challenge seriously for a flag that Brad Green might be like our Crawf. In actual fact, it's far more likely to be Sylvia or Davey in their twilight when we really hit our straps.

The hope from a Melbourne perspective is that we've recruited more in a block than in a wave and that a steady stream of talent between 2006 and 2010+ will sustain our challenge for a considerable number of years. Again, what I'm suggesting is that history tends not to reflect blocks of successful drafting, possibly because needs change over time. For example as teams get closer to their "window" or perceived window, they tend to look a bit more readily towards reasy made players (like Hawthorn the last two years). Carlton, I feel, topped up too early and may find that they need another wave before they seriously challenge.

In any event, by all measures we are young and still a way off. Here's hoping that the guys keep improving and that the leadership void is not a problem for too much longer!

Edited May 16, 201114 yr by Deemolition