Coupled with the clear preference for mature, hard bodies this draft period, I found the interview with Barry Prendergast about the rookie draft (on the official website) quite interesting.

Prendergast clearly stated that the coaching panel this year pretty well told him to recruit mature, tall, hard bodied players or tough as nails, hard bodied inside midfielders who could win their own ball.

Prendergast all but conceded that it represented a clear departure from the focus of previous years.

Perhaps it's because we have so many light bodied 'talented' players on our list that Neeld has sought to beef it up. However, it's also possible that Neeld favours a different type of player to the types we've recruited in recent years - hence, the focus on tough, big bodied players all of a sudden.

Made me think - if Neeld was at the helm from, say, 2008 - how different would our list look now.

For instance:

- would we have drafted Hurley instead of Watts

- would we have kept Junior (mature body) on the list for at least another year

- would we have drafted Tapscott at pick 11 in that draft (I suspect Neeld would love Tappy)

- would we have drafted Scully (skinny runt) over Dustin Martin or Gary Rohan (hard nuts) - clearly we would've drafted Trengove (he fits the bill for everyone)

- would we have drafted Jack Darling over Lucas Cook

Obviously this is all hypothetical and largely irrelevant now, but to me at least it's interesting to think how different our list may now look.

That said, I reckon it looks a lot more imposing than it did about three months ago.

Anyone thinking along the same lines?

  On 14/12/2011 at 11:19, Ron Burgundy said:

Coupled with the clear preference for mature, hard bodies this draft period, I found the interview with Barry Prendergast about the rookie draft (on the official website) quite interesting.

Prendergast clearly stated that the coaching panel this year pretty well told him to recruit mature, tall, hard bodied players or tough as nails, hard bodied inside midfielders who could win their own ball.

Prendergast all but conceded that it represented a clear departure from the focus of previous years.

Perhaps it's because we have so many light bodied 'talented' players on our list that Neeld has sought to beef it up. However, it's also possible that Neeld favours a different type of player to the types we've recruited in recent years - hence, the focus on tough, big bodied players all of a sudden.

Made me think - if Neeld was at the helm from, say, 2008 - how different would our list look now.

For instance:

-*******

I won't debate your "instances", but I for one am very happy with the notion of drafting 'hard' players, who enjoy the contest, be they tall, short, heavy or light.

Wow.

Now, I'm just worried that we might have wasted quite a few picks in recent years on players who may go no further than where they are now (under the new coaching regime).

No reflection on the talent those players bring, but if your ship is the wrong type you drown at sea. Or if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, you get hit by a freight train that wan't supposed to be there.

Nez Buddhism - we know Zen backwards.

Our list needed a total renovation after 2007. Players of all types. We now have a far more balanced list. I think the recruiting since Bailey took over has been great. Gysberts still worries me a bit. $cully was a mistake, but overall Neeld was given a great list to which he has added what he believes is needed. Now the work really begins.

There is a clear change in focus. Bailey was all about speed. Neeld comes from Collingwood, which is far from the best running side in the game, and his focus is evidently on strong hard players who won't be beaten out one on one. It's clear he loves Leigh Brown and we've taken several players already who are able to play the same role he did. I think we'd have a very different rookie list today if he'd been in charge a few years earlier. Hard to say how different our ND picks would have been as quite a few of them fit into his model as well. We'd be looking back to Watts, Blease and Strauss to find players who are really not in his style.

Hindsight is a wonderfull thing...

We might have kept Brock!!!

  On 14/12/2011 at 13:36, s-t-i-n-g-a said:

We might have kept Brock!!!

Ditto for Bruce; he may have felt like it was less likely that he'd be kicked to the curb for a young guy before his time.

Brings to mind the old Watts vs Naitanui debate.

Doesn't much matter now though and zero benefit for us pining for opportunities lost.

I think we have a decent list now, probably not premiership worthy yet but it will be good to see us competitive again in the seasons to come.

  On 14/12/2011 at 11:19, Ron Burgundy said:

Coupled with the clear preference for mature, hard bodies this draft period, I found the interview with Barry Prendergast about the rookie draft (on the official website) quite interesting.

Prendergast clearly stated that the coaching panel this year pretty well told him to recruit mature, tall, hard bodied players or tough as nails, hard bodied inside midfielders who could win their own ball.

Prendergast all but conceded that it represented a clear departure from the focus of previous years.

Perhaps it's because we have so many light bodied 'talented' players on our list that Neeld has sought to beef it up. However, it's also possible that Neeld favours a different type of player to the types we've recruited in recent years - hence, the focus on tough, big bodied players all of a sudden.

Made me think - if Neeld was at the helm from, say, 2008 - how different would our list look now.

For instance:

- would we have drafted Hurley instead of Watts

- would we have kept Junior (mature body) on the list for at least another year

- would we have drafted Tapscott at pick 11 in that draft (I suspect Neeld would love Tappy)

- would we have drafted Scully (skinny runt) over Dustin Martin or Gary Rohan (hard nuts) - clearly we would've drafted Trengove (he fits the bill for everyone)

- would we have drafted Jack Darling over Lucas Cook

Obviously this is all hypothetical and largely irrelevant now, but to me at least it's interesting to think how different our list may now look.

That said, I reckon it looks a lot more imposing than it did about three months ago.

Anyone thinking along the same lines?

And if my auntie had balls she would be my uncle!! that was then this is now we have a good list lets deal with that.

  On 14/12/2011 at 19:19, demon3165 said:

And if my auntie had balls she would be my uncle!! that was then this is now we have a good list lets deal with that.

She'd be CHB or CHF

  On 14/12/2011 at 19:19, demon3165 said:

And if my auntie had balls she would be my uncle!! that was then this is now we have a good list lets deal with that.

Perhaps I'd overlooked the fact that: 1. there have been some interesting and radical changes to our list strategy in the last two months; 2. this is a discussion forum; and 3. it is the off season.

As an aside, I'm not suggesting for a second that we have a poor list - in fact, to the contrary I am very excited about the next few years. I suspect our list would look quite different though had Neeld been at the helm for a bit longer than the last two months though.

I also suspect the blow outs wouldn't have occurred quite as often under this new regime. Neeld seems to have an aggressive focus on developing a hard edge (mentally and physically) - all speculation though, as we haven't kicked a ball in anger under the new regime yet. We'll soon see.

I don't think this argument has much merit.

We're recruiting mature bodied contested footy players because that's what we lack now, and due to what's available because of the weak draft.

If we'd gone for those then, we'd be looking at topping up on speedy skilled players now, when they just aren't there.

MFC's predicament was that we just didn't have any decent players and needed to basically recruit a whole new list.

Our mature bodied players were beyond second rate.

And the ones we're recruiting now are more about being a catalyst for getting the best out of the players we already had, rather than bringing anything new into the mix.

Ah, the off-season...

  On 14/12/2011 at 11:19, Ron Burgundy said:

For instance:

- would we have drafted Hurley instead of Watts

- would we have kept Junior (mature body) on the list for at least another year

- would we have drafted Tapscott at pick 11 in that draft (I suspect Neeld would love Tappy)

- would we have drafted Scully (skinny runt) over Dustin Martin or Gary Rohan (hard nuts) - clearly we would've drafted Trengove (he fits the bill for everyone)

- would we have drafted Jack Darling over Lucas Cook

I think we would definitely still have drafted Watts because it was clear from the beginning that he had to potential to be a star... just as he is now starting to reveal.

Yes, we quite possibly could have (and some might argue, should have) kept Junior.

Scully would have been drafted as he and Trengove were streets ahead of the rest; and WYL, to say that Scully was a mistake is nonsense... no-one had any idea what would unfold there and at the time he was the obvious 1 or 2 choice. As R&BB said, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

We got Tapscott, so which pick was used is neither here nor there.

Possibly they might have gone with Darling over Cook (why am I thinking of Black Adder at this point?).

The other one I think may have been overlooked at draft time purely for reasons of physique, might have been the Gys.. but no idea who would have been picked up in his place.

Bailey had the unenviable task of essentially trying to rebuild the list from the ground up... overall, his legacy has been the makings of a team that WILL amount to something. And we should never forget the sacrifices (ethical and personal) that he made in order to achieve that; no matter what we might think of his coaching abilities, he put his own career on the line to help set our club up for a better future.

If Neeld took over in 2008 and assuming that this years recruiting focus was his for the period form 2008 to now we'd probably be contemplating Neeld's replacement and lauding his replacement for focusing on speed, skill and whatever else the heavy body approach x 4 years would mean.

If Neeld is worth his salt his recruiting emphasis will shift as our needs shift year by year, as he rounds out our list.

Baily had a blank canvass to fill and I think he and the recruiters did a great job building the list we have.

The reality is that aside from Clarke, most of the team next year will have been recruited prior to this year.

  On 14/12/2011 at 13:27, Red&BlueBlood said:

Hindsight is a wonderfull thing...

And it's an opiate.

How about an MFC list if Kevin Sheedy took the helm at the end of 1980, or if Dennis Pagan took the helm at the end of 1992?

  On 14/12/2011 at 21:23, Lutz said:

I don't think this argument has much merit.

We're recruiting mature bodied contested footy players because that's what we lack now, and due to what's available because of the weak draft.

I don't think so.

Have a listen to Prendergast on 'DeeTV' via the MFC website; he was was pretty explicit about the fact that our selections at this draft were shaped by the new Coach/game plan.

  On 14/12/2011 at 22:34, Tony Tea said:

How about an MFC list if Kevin Sheedy took the helm at the end of 1980, or if Dennis Pagan took the helm at the end of 1992?

All the players would have retired by now so it's pretty irrelevant to the current list.

However, our list right now might have been pretty different and I think it's not only a reasonable discussion point, it's also interesting.

I think it is an interesting discussion and i wonder if we would have the picks we did if he'd taken over earlier

  On 14/12/2011 at 22:09, hardtack said:

IBailey had the unenviable task of essentially trying to rebuild the list from the ground up... overall, his legacy has been the makings of a team that WILL amount to something. And we should never forget the sacrifices (ethical and personal) that he made in order to achieve that; no matter what we might think of his coaching abilities, he put his own career on the line to help set our club up for a better future.

true that.

A 'hard' team still needs some silky skilled players, so I am unsure if Neeld would have picked up guys like Gysberts or Bennell. Strauss might be another....

That said, very silly topic, but we're still aways off from R1, so let it run!

It's clear that we were pushed off the ball too easily and ran out of legs this year. No super intelligence required to arrive at that.

Hard bodied players who can get their own ball and dispose of it. Hmmm who'd have thunk. Recruitment styles change over time just like when everyone was trying to recruit the next Kouta.

Our recruiting from DB's time was to recruit skilled players who had the potential to become elite. A raft of earlypicks meant we could choose that path. Pretty hard to do that now with a few compromised drafts. The club was aware of this skew or bias and are now adding the required grunt which is always much easier to come by. I would hate it to have been the otehr way around or we'd be stuffed.

  On 14/12/2011 at 22:09, hardtack said:

I think we would definitely still have drafted Watts because it was clear from the beginning that he had to potential to be a star... just as he is now starting to reveal.

Yes, we quite possibly could have (and some might argue, should have) kept Junior.

Scully would have been drafted as he and Trengove were streets ahead of the rest; and WYL, to say that Scully was a mistake is nonsense... no-one had any idea what would unfold there and at the time he was the obvious 1 or 2 choice. As R&BB said, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

We got Tapscott, so which pick was used is neither here nor there.

Possibly they might have gone with Darling over Cook (why am I thinking of Black Adder at this point?).

The other one I think may have been overlooked at draft time purely for reasons of physique, might have been the Gys.. but no idea who would have been picked up in his place.

Bailey had the unenviable task of essentially trying to rebuild the list from the ground up... overall, his legacy has been the makings of a team that WILL amount to something. And we should never forget the sacrifices (ethical and personal) that he made in order to achieve that; no matter what we might think of his coaching abilities, he put his own career on the line to help set our club up for a better future.

$cully was a mistake, whichever way you look at it. These things happen, but let's not hide from a fact. Tom never wanted to be an MFC player, he wanted to play AFL Football to the highest bidder.

  On 15/12/2011 at 04:02, why you little said:

$cully was a mistake, whichever way you look at it. These things happen, but let's not hide from a fact. Tom never wanted to be an MFC player, he wanted to play AFL Football to the highest bidder.

Knowing what we now know, yes... but at the time, he was not a mistake but was the obvious choice. Imagine the outcry if we hadn't taken him in that draft.