Little Lord Voldemort

[hardtack 10,555]

Drafting is far from an exact science Nutbean as you are probably well aware.

It is always a gamble because no one can guarantee how one player will develop campared to another.

There are lots of examples of players selected way outside the top 10 who turn out to be great players and lots inside who end up only average.

I doubt the MFC would have ever have picked Martin or Darling no matter what other people thought.

They simply were outside our image of nice boys.

And look what happened they got well and truely done over by the nice boy from Berwick or wherever he came from.

I would contend that even if we had drafted Darling and/or Martin, at the MFC they may not have become the players they are now proving themselves to be. By that I mean, the culture at this club had been erring on the side of "niceness" as was evidenced by Bailey's seemingly softly softly approach (I may be wrong). I think that under Nield's no nonsense approach, we will start to see a harder edge developing under which players like Magner, Clark, Viney, Beamer, Jones, Tapscott etc should thrive and hopefully players like Gysberts, Morton, Bennell and Watts will start to find a little aggression to bring into their games.

[old dee 23,801]

I would contend that even if we had drafted Darling and/or Martin, at the MFC they may not have become the players they are now proving themselves to be. By that I mean, the culture at this club had been erring on the side of "niceness" as was evidenced by Bailey's seemingly softly softly approach (I may be wrong). I think that under Nield's no nonsense approach, we will start to see a harder edge developing under which players like Magner, Clark, Viney, Beamer, Jones, Tapscott etc should thrive and hopefully players like Gysberts, Morton, Bennell and Watts will start to find a little aggression to bring into their games.

I hope you are right ht

[nutbean 8,838]

Drafting is far from an exact science Nutbean as you are probably well aware.

It is always a gamble because no one can guarantee how one player will develop campared to another.

There are lots of examples of players selected way outside the top 10 who turn out to be great players and lots inside who end up only average.

I doubt the MFC would have ever have picked Martin or Darling no matter what other people thought.

They simply were outside our image of nice boys.

And look what happened they got well and truely done over by the nice boy from Berwick or wherever he came from.

I will respect your opinion on Darling but mine differs - I think this is more an external opinion on this board rather than internal - I don't buy this image of us only drafting nice boys (think Byron Pickett). I don't think we passed on Darling thinking he was pick 8 talent with a pick 27 attitude. I genuinely believe we think that Cook was a better pick.We can respect each others opinion.

Having said that there was one simple reason that we did not pick or interview Martin - Scully and Trengove were clearly identified as the first the best two prospects.

I love Nathan Jones but we have all seen his tweets - do you think he would have interviewed to this perceived "nice boy image" ?

If we stayed away from the likes of Fevola because of his image and being a bad boy then in that case I support the club - the man is a train wreck. If Martin was head and shoulders above Scullgove we would have picked him. He wasnt.

Edited March 21, 2012 by nutbean

[nutbean 8,838]

I would contend that even if we had drafted Darling and/or Martin, at the MFC they may not have become the players they are now proving themselves to be. By that I mean, the culture at this club had been erring on the side of "niceness" as was evidenced by Bailey's seemingly softly softly approach (I may be wrong). I think that under Nield's no nonsense approach, we will start to see a harder edge developing under which players like Magner, Clark, Viney, Beamer, Jones, Tapscott etc should thrive and hopefully players like Gysberts, Morton, Bennell and Watts will start to find a little aggression to bring into their games.

I agree with this to the extent that again I will bang on about how we have failed in development. I dont think we draft nice boys - I think we do not challenge our players to be the best and have a hard edge. I believe we have to some extent accepted mediocrity. We laud that under Daniher we were the most successful Victorian team in terms of finals played. I counter that we did not have that hard edge or the extra 5% to take our boys from good footballers making the finals to really good footballers going further and deeper into the finals (and to the ultimate).

I'll ask you - The Roo's have never been labelled soft by club outsiders. Have we ?

[old dee 23,801]

I will respect your opinion on Darling but mine differs - I think this is more an external opinion on this board rather than internal - I don't buy this image of us only drafting nice boys (think Byron Pickett). I don't think we passed on Darling thinking he was pick 8 talent with a pick 27 attitude. I genuinely believe we think that Cook was a better pick.We can respect each others opinion.

Having said that there was one simple reason that we did not pick or interview Martin - Scully and Trengove were clearly identified as the first the best two prospects.

I love Nathan Jones but we have all seen his tweets - do you think he would have interviewed to this perceived "nice boy image" ?

If we stayed away from the likes of Fevola because of his image and being a bad boy then in that case I support the club - the man is a train wreck. If Martin was head and shoulders above Scullgove we would have picked him. He wasnt.

You may well be right Nutbean my contention is that all things being equal we will shy away from anyone who was not a nice boy.

The two examples you picked Picket and Jones were from The ND era

Since then we have IMO been on this trip that the recruits need to be from good backgrounds and be exceptional citizens.

While i do not want the MFC choosing bums I am constantly reminded of that saying

"Nice guys don't win premierships"

[nutbean 8,838]

You may well be right Nutbean my contention is that all things being equal we will shy away from anyone who was not a nice boy.

The two examples you picked Picket and Jones were from The ND era

Since then we have IMO been on this trip that the recruits need to be from good backgrounds and be exceptional citizens.

While i do not want the MFC choosing bums I am constantly reminded of that saying

"Nice guys don't win premierships"

Interested who you think we have shyed away from.

The only person I think you can make a case for is Darling.

I dont agree with the nice guys adage. I prefer hard guys win premierships. You can quote your Terry Danihers and Glen Archers but think Collingwood and even Geelong last year - not a matter of nice or not nice - its a matter of hard.

What I am expecting this year ? Hitting more contests harder. I dont need guys playing nasty like Mitch Clark - i want everyone playing hard like Ro Bail.

[old dee 23,801]

Interested who you think we have shyed away from.

The only person I think you can make a case for is Darling.

I dont agree with the nice guys adage. I prefer hard guys win premierships. You can quote your Terry Danihers and Glen Archers but think Collingwood and even Geelong last year - not a matter of nice or not nice - its a matter of hard.

What I am expecting this year ? Hitting more contests harder. I dont need guys playing nasty like Mitch Clark - i want everyone playing hard like Ro Bail.

In the end nutbean it is only a discussion about degrees.

If you don't have the ability it probably matters little if you are nice or not.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

Would love to have Martin, but the consensus amongst AFL clubs and the media was that Scully and Trengove were clearly the top 2. I don't know of many who would say that at the time Martin would have been a better selection.

Other clubs were definitely onto Martin at the time (ie, prior to the draft). The Swans in particular was one such club - and, cop a tip, they know how to identify hard, effective, loyal types.

It was simply a massive opportunity having picks 1 & 2. The club had an obligation to absolutely nail them - and part of that involves following a process (ie, interview all players who might be in the mix for those picks - don't assume anything). If, after following the process, the club makes a judgement call in good faith and ultimately gets it wrong, then so be it - that happens. But, to NOT even interview Martin in the circumstances - well, that's bordering on criminal recklessness IMO. It's also amateur in the extreme.

I still find it hard to come to terms with Richmond having a better midfield than us, particularly given our focus in recent years on building an elite midfield. And, to think, we heaped so much praise on Jordan McMahon at the time. There's more than a bit of irony in that.

Martin and Trengove would've transformed our midfield.

Here are the articles. They're not a pretty read.

http://www.heraldsun...f-1226045887508

http://www.heraldsun...f-1225795211997

http://www.foxsports...3-1226080357418

[nutbean 8,838]

In the end nutbean it is only a discussion about degrees.

If you don't have the ability it probably matters little if you are nice or not.

But its how you define ability. I define ability being able to make the most of your talent. You can rank players talent and Colin Sylvia is up the top and Nat Jones is somewhat lower. - in terms of making the most of what talent you have Jones is near the top of all our players. ( God love Big Jimmy - this is where he excelled)

[old dee 23,801]

But its how you define ability. I define ability being able to make the most of your talent. You can rank players talent and Colin Sylvia is up the top and Nat Jones is somewhat lower. - in terms of making the most of what talent you have Jones is near the top of all our players. ( God love Big Jimmy - this is where he excelled)

You are correct but jones will never be Judd no matter how hard he tries.

And we need a couple of Judds

[nutbean 8,838]

Other clubs were definitely onto Martin at the time (ie, prior to the draft). The Swans in particular was one such club - and, cop a tip, they know how to identify hard, effective, loyal types.

It was simply a massive opportunity having picks 1 & 2. The club had an obligation to absolutely nail them - and part of that involves following a process (ie, interview all players who might be in the mix for those picks - don't assume anything). If, after following the process, the club makes a judgement call in good faith and ultimately gets it wrong, then so be it - that happens. But, to NOT even interview Martin in the circumstances - well, that's bordering on criminal recklessness IMO. It's also amateur in the extreme.

I still find it hard to come to terms with Richmond having a better midfield than us, particularly given our focus in recent years on building an elite midfield. And, to think, we heaped so much praise on Jordan McMahon at the time. There's more than a bit of irony in that.

Martin and Trengove would've transformed our midfield.

Here are the articles. They're not a pretty read.

http://www.heraldsun...f-1226045887508

http://www.heraldsun...f-1225795211997

http://www.foxsports...3-1226080357418

Should we have interviewed Martin - yes - although I'm not sure what it would have achieved.

Two of you articles are from now - after the event.

He has spoken to 12 clubs, and not Melbourne, which doesn't surprise him.

The one article that was prior to the draft had as a probable no 3 pick and "He, like everyone,

expects Tom Scully and Jack Trengove to go No. 1 and No. 2.".

Scullgove were a lock and again all we are doing is looking in the rear vision mirror. Scullgove were clearly the first two picks at the time.

Did we interview Niknat the year before ? Yes. Why ? Because clearly there was a choice of who was the best player at number one pick in the 2008 draft.

In hindsight I wish we had taken Martin. But again I will ask to produce anything to suggest that at the time someone anyone even gave the slightest hint that the 1&2 pick should include Martin or anyone else ?

[rjay 24,993]

Some talk about hindsight, and it is a wonderful thing but something that has always grated on me about Tom Scully was his use of langauge, and in particular when he talked of the "football industry". I would have thought if the interview and testing procedures were thorough this would have come up and rung some alarm bells. To me he would always go for the money because this is how he viewed football, in a dispassionate way.

The same thorough interview and testing procedures would have seen us at least talk to Martin and get an inside perspective on him and a comparison to the other top picks, surely we did that.

If it is true that we didn't look any furter than Scully and Trengove then we could have saved a bit of cash and disbanded the recruiting department and gone with whatever Emma Quale predicted, wouldn't have been much different.

[nutbean 8,838]

You are correct but jones will never be Judd no matter how hard he tries.

And we need a couple of Judds

Nothing surer.

I look at some of the talent we have had and bemoan that they have not had the ability to maximise their talent. Whilst I am not suggesting that Col could be a Judd but I will ask why not ? - I will suggest he has the talent to be in the top 50 players. He has so far not shown the ability to maximise his talent.

I will make a bold prediction (purely from "speak" not "actions").I think Neeld and his staff over the next three years will develop stars because I beleive he will set the bar way higher than it has been. I like what Neil Craig has said about expectations - that what ask the palyers to do may not suit all the players and they make no apologies for that - I love that attitude -Time will tell if we are able to maximise this lists talent and make some Sylvia's into Judd's.

[nutbean 8,838]

Some talk about hindsight, and it is a wonderful thing but something that has always grated on me about Tom Scully was his use of langauge, and in particular when he talked of the "football industry". I would have thought if the interview and testing procedures were thorough this would have come up and rung some alarm bells. To me he would always go for the money because this is how he viewed football, in a dispassionate way.

The same thorough interview and testing procedures would have seen us at least talk to Martin and get an inside perspective on him and a comparison to the other top picks, surely we did that.

If it is true that we didn't look any furter than Scully and Trengove then we could have saved a bit of cash and disbanded the recruiting department and gone with whatever Emma Quale predicted, wouldn't have been much different.

We dont know what was said at interview but if he sprouted (successfully) the same lies as he did in his March presser then alarm bells wouldnt have gone off.

Your Emma Quales suggestion is simplistic but if you want to follow that path then all clubs should follow suit as she hasnt been wrong with 1&2 in my memory.

[rjay 24,993]

We dont know what was said at interview but if he sprouted (successfully) the same lies as he did in his March presser then alarm bells wouldnt have gone off.

Your Emma Quales suggestion is simplistic but if you want to follow that path then all clubs should follow suit as she hasnt been wrong with 1&2 in my memory.

Yes mate, let's save money for all clubs and let Emma run the draft. Of course it is simplistic and I'm sure a lot of work goes in behind the scenes as I'm equally as sure that Emmas list comes from her contacts within the recruiting industry. But it is this consensus that maybe will see someone like Jack Darling fall through to the 20's and also why any club would have picked up Scully at 1, it would have been a very courageous move not to.

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

$cully used the MFC as a means to an end. I do not think his attitude ever changed. That is his right.

I just wish the MFC recruiters had picked this up. They didn't sadly. $cully openly told Jimma he was committed, but his words were always hollow.

To not interview Martin is just naive to the extreme. It is not hard to read a persons character. So in that department we failed.

Now other clubs may have done exactly the same thing, so i can accept that. But it is still a fail.

[old dee 23,801]

Some talk about hindsight, and it is a wonderful thing but something that has always grated on me about Tom Scully was his use of langauge, and in particular when he talked of the "football industry". I would have thought if the interview and testing procedures were thorough this would have come up and rung some alarm bells. To me he would always go for the money because this is how he viewed football, in a dispassionate way.

The same thorough interview and testing procedures would have seen us at least talk to Martin and get an inside perspective on him and a comparison to the other top picks, surely we did that.

If it is true that we didn't look any furter than Scully and Trengove then we could have saved a bit of cash and disbanded the recruiting department and gone with whatever Emma Quale predicted, wouldn't have been much different.

My hindsight view of Scully is this.

He and his family knew quite someways out from draft day that he was going to be picked by Melbourne.

He also knew via his family / manager that the GWS were coming into calculations and if he took a two year deal he would be in a position to score a high contract either from the MFC or GWS in a bidding process.

IMO it was always his / families view that he had no say into which club he would be drafted so he would use the system to his advantage

He did know it would be one of the bottom 2 or 3.

He had no intention of staying with a bottom 3 club on ordinary wages, without GWS he would be still be with the Dees on a quarter of his current salary simply because it would have been very difficult to leave.

IMO the current situation was hatched before he was drafted.

His family knew well the lay of the land between 2009 and 2012 and they exploited it perfectly.

That is my take!

[rjay 24,993]

My hindsight view of Scully is this.

He and his family knew quite someways out from draft day that he was going to be picked by Melbourne.

He also knew via his family / manager that the GWS were coming into calculations and if he took a two year deal he would be in a position to score a high contract either from the MFC or GWS in a bidding process.

IMO it was always his / families view that he had no say into which club he would be drafted so he would use the system to his advantage

He did know it would be one of the bottom 2 or 3.

He had no intention of staying with a bottom 3 club on ordinary wages, without GWS he would be still be with the Dees on a quarter of his current salary simply because it would have been very difficult to leave.

IMO the current situation was hatched before he was drafted.

His family knew well the lay of the land between 2009 and 2012 and they exploited it perfectly.

That is my take!

"Football Industry"

[nutbean 8,838]

Everyone failed

Captain Hindsights draft

Pick one - Dustin Martin ( pick 3)

Pick two - Nathan Fyfe ( pick 20)

Pick three - Sam Reid (pick 38)

[hardtack 10,555]

I agree with this to the extent that again I will bang on about how we have failed in development. I dont think we draft nice boys - I think we do not challenge our players to be the best and have a hard edge. I believe we have to some extent accepted mediocrity. We laud that under Daniher we were the most successful Victorian team in terms of finals played. I counter that we did not have that hard edge or the extra 5% to take our boys from good footballers making the finals to really good footballers going further and deeper into the finals (and to the ultimate).

I'll ask you - The Roo's have never been labelled soft by club outsiders. Have we ?

Actually NB, you agree with me 100%... I said nothing about drafting "nice boys"... my contention was that we essentially took a "softly softly" approach in player development.

[nutbean 8,838]

It is not hard to read a persons character. So in that department we failed.

Really ? I cant understand why students have to study for four to six year course to master it - should be much quicker.

So you think they interviewed him and failed to see the character flaws ? Or saw the character flaws but thought they could change him?

Again there are a plethora of articles and interviews with the kid predraft that speaks of his professionalism and his frenetic energy with training and bettering himself. I will wait for you to point me to any interview or article where there is a hint of a suggestion regarding his character at draft time.

this is pretty simple I think. He was drafted, he got offered to be in the top five paid players in the league. He picked the money. There is no character flaw there. Before you are offered huge money it is really easy to say I dont play for the money. Where he is flawed is that I now believe he lied in his March presser ( albeit in a system that forces players to lie). And there are 6 million reasons that caused this lying to emerge.

So you are aware of how easy it is to judge a character ? For certain patterns of behaviour to emerge defined stimuli are required. (6 million dollars of stimuli). Unless that stimuli existed at draft time then no no no - this judgement of character would not have been as easy and evident as you are making out.

How about talking to someone in the field and get a professional opinion and then you will be in a position to cast a balanced opinion on how easy it is to judge a character and how we failed.

Note - sorry to be so passionate about thisWYL but I think the club should be held accountable for decisions it makes that at the time, with the information and skill at their disposal, was decision that the club ( and most clubs) would not have made.

Szondy's regime allowing a tax bill to sit in a draw unpaid until it incurred huge penalties is something the club should be held accountable for. I just cant see how at the time of drafting we should have walked away from Scully.

Edited March 21, 2012 by nutbean

[nutbean 8,838]

Actually NB, you agree with me 100%... I said nothing about drafting "nice boys"... my contention was that we essentially took a "softly softly" approach in player development.

I re-read and i do agree 100%. You were alluding to niceness, not in our selection but in our treatment of who we selected - hence the softly softly. Cheers big ears.

[olisik 4,060]

We dont know what was said at interview but if he sprouted (successfully) the same lies as he did in his March presser then alarm bells wouldnt have gone off.

Your Emma Quales suggestion is simplistic but if you want to follow that path then all clubs should follow suit as she hasnt been wrong with 1&2 in my memory.

Is there any reason why Melb shouldn't try to recruit Emma Quale as a recruiting Manager?

[nutbean 8,838]

Is there any reason why Melb shouldn't try to recruit Emma Quale as a recruiting Manager?

Interesting notion.

Heres the rub - whilst Emma Quale does get out and see TAC football how do you think she is forming her opinions on who will go where in the draft and know so much detail about the juniors. She talks to the recruiters from the clubs.

[Roost It 1,434]

We've had alot of high picks on the back of some very dubious efforts by both the coach and the team.

We are simply reaping what we sowed. More average to good footballers to take us close but not all the way.

Unless Viney turns out to be as good as hoped and we pick up an elite midfielder we are stuck in mediocrity as always.

Losing Scully was a disaster for the club. He'll be a gun in the next few years.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Roost It