On 02/04/2012 at 11:32, thaipantsman said:

Bailey was a legacy of Gary Lyon. Appointed by Gary Lyon as was Neeld.

Fairly disingenuous to blame Lyon for Bailey.

No wonder he wanted nothing to do with the process the next time, with supporters willing to so misguidedly point the finger.

  On 02/04/2012 at 10:40, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't have to think about it at all - it' blatantly obvious.

Enough said - its pretty clear you and others have not thought about the "real" problem - the "names" by themselves are irrelevant.

But you just keep blaming the recruiters if that makes you and others feel better.

  On 02/04/2012 at 04:00, nutbean said:

And I asked all the geniuses who keep looking in the rear vision mirror on recruiting to talk about who we "should have taken" at last years draft and besides one well considered response there was dead silence.

The whole Scully/Trengove and we should have interviewed Martin is such a nonsense. I am going to interview Bob Katter before the next election before deciding between Julia and Tony.( if we draft any of those three I will be mightily disappointed).

Not one recruiter in the land would have taken Martin before those two so I wish everyone would stop harping on this.

Happy to concede on Darling over Cook if thats how it turns out yet I want to wait until Cook is out of nappies before making a call on him.

We can bang on about Watts and Niknat as this was a real choice we had to make and if Niknat turns out to be a champion and Watts not then happy to say our recruiters got it wrong - but give it a rest on Martin. All the keyboard genius's who thought we should have taken Martin show me the money ( and dont give me the palookah " thats what recruiters are paid the big money for")

You're missing the point IMO, nutbean.

In simple terms, I think the role of a recruiter is to advise the club on the best players for each selection it has in the drafts in which it participates (generally, the national, PSD and rookie drafts each year). They get paid to do this. Presumably it involves monitoring and assessing a lot of players across a number of competitions, potentially over several years. None of this, I expect, is contentious analysis.

To do this job effectively, indeed professionally, I expect the best recruiters employ rigorous processes. They then follow those processes. Part of that process would involve interviewing players, parents, friends, club coaches and school teachers. I don't expect this would always produce the silver bullet for each selection, but it would be an important information gathering component in the recruiting process. In fact, I expect questions would be asked if it this process wasn't followed.

Most commentators seem to agree that Dustin Martin is the best pick from the 2009 draft - a midfield game changing pick. As we all know, we had the first TWO picks in his draft and we elected not to select him. That does not trouble me in itself - predictions are made and it is not always obvious as to how some players will develop. It is further troubling that one of the players we backed to build our entire midfield around (something you would really want to be pretty damn certain about) never truly committed to the club and then left as soon as his initial contract expired. On any construction, certainly in any results driven field, a major stuff up.

But what actually troubles me is this. Despite the comments you have made above, the club seemingly failed to institute and follow a professional process in relation to these selections. If it did, it would've interviewed Martin. It did not. I would hope it would've also interviewed several other players (Rohan, Morabito etc). I'm not sure if it did.

If then, after interviewing Martin AND Scully AND Trengove AND a few others (ie, after following a professional process), the club then arrived at the view that Scully and Trengove were the two best players to spend picks 1 and 2 on - that's fine. But it's not what happened - and I find that reckless in the extreme. History has also proved this to be a mistake.

Most people I know who have some responsibility in their job will say that there will always be some tolerance given for the wrong decision, but only if it was made after adhering to a professional and appropriate decision making process. In this case, it seems not to have occurred. And that's why I am annoyed.

I mean, how does one credibly benchmark Scully and Trengove if you fail to interview Martin. And, to the best of my recollection, everyone knew he was a certainty to be picked up by Richmond at number three well before the draft.

Reckless stuff. And it has cost us a potentially elite midfield.

  On 02/04/2012 at 12:34, Ron Burgundy said:

You're missing the point IMO, nutbean.

In simple terms, I think the role of a recruiter is to advise the club on the best players for each selection it has in the drafts in which it participates (generally, the national, PSD and rookie drafts each year). They get paid to do this. Presumably it involves monitoring and assessing a lot of players across a number of competitions, potentially over several years. None of this, I expect, is contentious analysis.

To do this job effectively, indeed professionally, I expect the best recruiters employ rigorous processes. They then follow those processes. Part of that process would involve interviewing players, parents, friends, club coaches and school teachers. I don't expect this would always produce the silver bullet for each selection, but it would be an important information gathering component in the recruiting process. In fact, I expect questions would be asked if it this process wasn't followed.

Most commentators seem to agree that Dustin Martin is the best pick from the 2009 draft - a midfield game changing pick. As we all know, we had the first TWO picks in his draft and we elected not to select him. That does not trouble me in itself - predictions are made and it is not always obvious as to how some players will develop. It is further troubling that one of the players we backed to build our entire midfield around (something you would really want to be pretty damn certain about) never truly committed to the club and then left as soon as his initial contract expired. On any construction, certainly in any results driven field, a major stuff up.

But what actually troubles me is this. Despite the comments you have made above, the club seemingly failed to institute and follow a professional process in relation to these selections. If it did, it would've interviewed Martin. It did not. I would hope it would've also interviewed several other players (Rohan, Morabito etc). I'm not sure if it did.

If then, after interviewing Martin AND Scully AND Trengove AND a few others (ie, after following a professional process), the club then arrived at the view that Scully and Trengove were the two best players to spend picks 1 and 2 on - that's fine. But it's not what happened - and I find that reckless in the extreme. History has also proved this to be a mistake.

Most people I know who have some responsibility in their job will say that there will always be some tolerance given for the wrong decision, but only if it was made after adhering to a professional and appropriate decision making process. In this case, it seems not to have occurred. And that's why I am annoyed.

I mean, how does one credibly benchmark Scully and Trengove if you fail to interview Martin. And, to the best of my recollection, everyone knew he was a certainty to be picked up by Richmond at number three well before the draft.

Reckless stuff. And it has cost us a potentially elite midfield.

- Im sorry you dont know one thing about Dusty - its so obvious from the comments.

"Reckless stuff. And it has cost us a potentially elite midfield." this comment is just emotive rubbish.

  On 02/04/2012 at 12:54, Dr Who said:

- Im sorry you dont know one thing about Dusty - its so obvious from the comments.

"Reckless stuff. And it has cost us a potentially elite midfield." this comment is just emotive rubbish.

What if they'd interviewed Dustin Martin and gone "Whoa! I love this guy's passion. He has his head screwed on right and is intensely loyal. I know we said we'd draft Scully at number one to keep the spotlight of our real first pick Jack Trengove, but maybe we should pick up Martin instead. Boy am I glad we decided to interview him."

BANG! We have two absolute stars in the midfield and with Jack Viney coming through, our prospects would be looking even better.

  On 02/04/2012 at 04:00, nutbean said:

And I asked all the geniuses who keep looking in the rear vision mirror on recruiting to talk about who we "should have taken" at last years draft and besides one well considered response there was dead silence.

The whole Scully/Trengove and we should have interviewed Martin is such a nonsense. I am going to interview Bob Katter before the next election before deciding between Julia and Tony.( if we draft any of those three I will be mightily disappointed).

Not one recruiter in the land would have taken Martin before those two so I wish everyone would stop harping on this.

Given that our antenna was seemingly tuned into Radio Tom only, having watched the way in which he dealt with the club during his two years with us (including lying to Jim and then skipping the coop as soon as possible), do you actually think Scully should've been a complete no brainer for that pick.

Loyalty was always something that needed to be interrogated NKVD style in that draft. Everyone just had to know GWS would be floating around. I can't presently think of any other top 6 picks from that draft who didn't put ink to paper fairly soon after being offered contract extensions by their respective clubs. The process failed us.

  On 02/04/2012 at 12:54, Dr Who said:

- Im sorry you dont know one thing about Dusty - its so obvious from the comments.

"Reckless stuff. And it has cost us a potentially elite midfield." this comment is just emotive rubbish.

I hardly think I post in an emotive way. In particular, if you actually read my post in its entirety, you will see I am seeking to comment on the process that I suspect failed us, not necessarily the players ultimately selected.

And yes - stuffing up this pick has cost us, certainly in the short to medium term, a potentially elite midfield. Hardly 'emotive rubbish' - in fact, the contrary view suggests a more emotional response to me.

And finally, you're not completely right about not knowing "one thing about Dusty". Having watched him play, I reckon I know a thing or two.

That said, I'm prepared to conceded that I don't actually know him if that makes you happy. But, given that the rest of the informed AFL world reckons he's going to be absolute superstar, I might back their collective opinion on this issue over yours. In fact, I'll just back Damien Hardwick's view given that he coaches him - he rates him exceptionally highly.

Also, your assertion that every other club would have picked Scully and Trengove with picks 1 and 2 is far too convenient for me - I also don't believe it's factually correct. I'm pretty confident Roos is on the record as saying the Swans would've picked Martin with either of those picks, and I think Richmond may well have too. And I reckon if some other clubs actually had picks 1 and 2 and the benefit of time to nail these selections like we did, you may ultimately have seen the sands shift on this, but that's pure speculation of course.

Net result - we don't have our first pick anymore or Martin. Thankfully we have Trengove. But we needed to nail two elite midfielders with these picks. In short, such an opportunity will never present itself to this club again.

I suspect Neeld took a similar view when he got the gig and had to assess our list.

As a club that was on its knees not all that long ago, and struggling in nearly every aspect a footy club can, did anyone actually expect by some miracle that we had an elite level recruiting and talent identification team at the club???????

As a result, I think slamming Cameron and Prendergast in isolation is a little unfair, however I think overall it looks like our drafting over the past 5-7 years looks very ordinary.

  On 02/04/2012 at 13:15, Ron Burgundy said:

I hardly think I post in an emotive way. In particular, if you actually read my post in its entirety, you will see I am seeking to comment on the process that I suspect failed us, not necessarily the players ultimately selected.

And yes - stuffing up this pick has cost us, certainly in the short to medium term, a potentially elite midfield. Hardly 'emotive rubbish' - in fact, the contrary view suggests a more emotional perspective to me.

And finally, you're not completely right about not knowing "one thing about Dusty". Having watched him play, I reckon I know a thing or two.

However, I'm prepared to conceded that I don't actually know him if that makes you happy. But, given that the rest of the informed AFL world reckons he's going to be absolute superstar, I might back their collective opinion on this issue over yours. In fact, I'll just back Damien Hardwick's view given that he coaches him.

I did read your comments. I'm sorry but you are "commenting" on a process you clearly know very little about. Now that is something that is very common around here. (but thats all I can say)

"watching" a player is only ever a small part of the process - but you did at least qualify your understanding.

Funny the rest of the AFL world NOW has the value of hindsight - so I'm glad you back their opinion. Stick with Dimma he does have a very high opinion of Dusty - but shivers why does that surprise me??? But the person you should be asking opinions on ranking kids is Francis Jackson - then you might not be saying half the stuff you are saying.

My real opinion I will keep to myself.

3 or 4 yrs ago I posted that the 1st character we should be looking for in the draft is an apatite for the contest.

Then look at skills, etc.

nothing has changed; we and many clubs have got it wrong - its just that it means so much more to us because we have a [censored] senior list.

  On 02/04/2012 at 03:08, BarrassHarrass said:

what p!sses me off is that we seem to have recruited a bunch of skinny kids with good character from nice neighbourhoods instead of the best availablee players in the draft. we kept hearing the concerns about player personalities and so forth, being a problem for the MFC. Personally, i don't give a sh!t about player personalities or whether the player is going to impress the Coterie down at teh Melbourne Club...

You have removed any doubt about your capabilities for the recruiting manager job.

  On 02/04/2012 at 11:54, Dr Who said:

Enough said - its pretty clear you and others have not thought about the "real" problem - the "names" by themselves are irrelevant.

But you just keep blaming the recruiters if that makes you and others feel better.

Agree.

  On 02/04/2012 at 13:09, Chook said:

What if they'd interviewed Dustin Martin and gone "Whoa! I love this guy's passion. He has his head screwed on right and is intensely loyal. I know we said we'd draft Scully at number one to keep the spotlight of our real first pick Jack Trengove, but maybe we should pick up Martin instead. Boy am I glad we decided to interview him."

BANG! We have two absolute stars in the midfield and with Jack Viney coming through, our prospects would be looking even better.

Nice bit of fantasy there Chook. That some how a half hour interview with a player can suddenly make you rip up all your notes and research accumulated over the past 12 months. Are we talking Jesus of Iscariot? And if you want to push your angle further, then Trengove would have been the one to make way for Martin...not Scully.

FWIW, Martin is a very good footballer but is no great personality. He wont blow you away in an I/V as such. With picks 1 and 2, MFC chose the best available talent in the junior levels. Scully was a lock in and there was no possible indication that he would have walk to GWS even though the resident Dland psychologists and hindsight crystal ball gazers will tell you otherwise.

Pick 2 was Trengove who was assessed as the 2nd best player in the draft and I recall at the time he exuded leadership and maturity at the I/V stage. Its no wonder that has resulted in him being one of the youingest captains at AFL level.

Given our next pick was pick 11 (Gysberts) and we knew Richmond would take Martin at 3 then it is plausible and reasonable that Martin may not have been interviewed.

  On 02/04/2012 at 13:15, Ron Burgundy said:

....

Ron you are victory of hindsight over foresight. And the Doctor is spot on.

  On 02/04/2012 at 22:43, Rhino Richards said:

Ron you are victory of hindsight over foresight. And the Doctor is spot on.

Pity they're the only victories we seem to be experiencing at the moment.

  On 02/04/2012 at 23:40, Ron Burgundy said:

Pity they're the only victories we seem to be experiencing at the moment.

Completely agree Ron. It is indeed a pity.

  On 02/04/2012 at 23:40, Ron Burgundy said:

Pity they're the only victories we seem to be experiencing at the moment.

Stick in there Ron there is still much water to flow under the bridge. We can & we will turn this around.

Dean Bailey is getting too easy ride through this. He had the players for four years and stifled the development of most players at the club. His inability to teach football is a large part of the reason Melbournes list is so bad.

Four years ago Sylvia, Green, Davey, Moloney, Miller and Bate looked like they could be very good players. Bailey has done so much damage to this club

  On 02/04/2012 at 13:15, Ron Burgundy said:

Also, your assertion that every other club would have picked Scully and Trengove with picks 1 and 2 is far too convenient for me - I also don't believe it's factually correct.

good - so now we get to the crux - I remember at the time that Scully was locked in as number one two years out from the draft and Butcher slipped off the radar and Trengove became second favourite - after the Carnival and the SA finals there was some talk about who would go number one - Scully or Trengove.

So if you think it is too convenient then I will happily await one shred of reporting that suggested anything from anyone that one to two months out Scully and Trengove would not go top two.

I am happy to provide an interview where Dustin Martin suggested that Scully and Trengove would go one and two.

I have called for this umpteen times and until anyone can provide me something somwhere where a genius suggested anyone else other than Scullgove would be picked 1,2 - I will call it as I see it rear vision mirror revisionism.

  On 03/04/2012 at 00:21, Thomo said:

Dean Bailey is getting too easy ride through this. He had the players for four years and stifled the development of most players at the club. His inability to teach football is a large part of the reason Melbournes list is so bad.

Four years ago Sylvia, Green, Davey, Moloney, Miller and Bate looked like they could be very good players. Bailey has done so much damage to this club

This to me is the most troubling - call it Bailey, the coaching staff, the culture - there is something that allows us to be delivered capable footballers who just stall in their progress. You suggest it was Bailey - I am not saying you are wrong in blaming purely Bailey but I dont know the answer.

All I know is what Neeld said last night and he is 100% correct - we have a handful of players that can and should developed to the ultimate level. Players that Mike Sheahan will put in his top 50.

Bump.

I feel like assassinating Dean Bailey, Craig Cameron and Barry Prendergast for putting us in this mess. But that would be giving our senior players too little credit for the stunning role they've played in the complete and utter destruction of my beloved Demons.

  On 02/04/2012 at 02:28, dee-luded said:

Bailey was teaching us to play a run & carry offensive gamestyle. Tough to play & do without starting from scratch without top quality leaders & footballers onfield. You are still required to head down win the footy & extract it out to the runners.

Now an about face & we have to teach these 'Outside types' to earn their kicks... A big change. and meanwhile the senior career players are tiring of wasting their careers with ever changing tactics & personnel thru these ongoing gamestyle changes.

We all have to take a collective deep breath, realise the list isn't at all bad but needs to learn which gamestyle to play & then learn it. Thru continuity we'll grow together, or divide us & conquer us if were Un United....

The man was a tool and a fool whos only skill was a power point presentation that wowed the selection committee

Pass thank god

  On 03/04/2012 at 00:38, nutbean said:

good - so now we get to the crux - I remember at the time that Scully was locked in as number one two years out from the draft and Butcher slipped off the radar and Trengove became second favourite - after the Carnival and the SA finals there was some talk about who would go number one - Scully or Trengove.

So if you think it is too convenient then I will happily await one shred of reporting that suggested anything from anyone that one to two months out Scully and Trengove would not go top two.

I am happy to provide an interview where Dustin Martin suggested that Scully and Trengove would go one and two.

I have called for this umpteen times and until anyone can provide me something somwhere where a genius suggested anyone else other than Scullgove would be picked 1,2 - I will call it as I see it rear vision mirror revisionism.

Hey No been did you ever watch Martin play in the carnival?

  On 02/04/2012 at 13:50, Dr Who said:

I did read your comments. I'm sorry but you are "commenting" on a process you clearly know very little about. Now that is something that is very common around here. (but thats all I can say)

"watching" a player is only ever a small part of the process - but you did at least qualify your understanding.

Funny the rest of the AFL world NOW has the value of hindsight - so I'm glad you back their opinion. Stick with Dimma he does have a very high opinion of Dusty - but shivers why does that surprise me??? But the person you should be asking opinions on ranking kids is Francis Jackson - then you might not be saying half the stuff you are saying.

My real opinion I will keep to myself.

Some of you should go back without hindsight and reread what you posted

BUMP!

  On 05/09/2012 at 14:07, Range Rover said:

BUMP!

Wow. Rover is still tedious and repetitive.

You sure you're not Ron from 'ology RR? If not, you're the second biggest self-fan I've ever seen on footy forums. Being right is very important to you, isn't it?

  On 05/09/2012 at 14:07, Range Rover said:

BUMP!

Captain Hindsight is back!!

Anyone who bags out EVERYTHING to do with the club they apparently support is bound to get something right some time.