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.

How about the guy 'carefully managing all elements' of this great list since '09?

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/74338/default.aspx

How about the guy 'carefully managing all elements' of this great list since '09?

http://www.melbourne...38/default.aspx

Which actions directly attributable to Tim Harrington do you take exception to?

Which actions directly attributable to Tim Harrington do you take exception to?

The 'five year plan' and 'rebuilding the list' parts.

The 'five year plan' and 'rebuilding the list' parts.

What was wrong with them and how should they have been done differently?

What was wrong with them and how should they have been done differently?

Maybe ask someone who is in charge of list management at a half-decent club?

I throw Harrington's name out there becuase it's amazing the flack Prendergast and Bailey is getting while the guy who directly oversaw all of their operations gets absolutely no mention on here.

Mind-boggling really.

Early draft picks are no guarantees!

Saints had plenty but yet no flag to show for!

Geelong picks generally were in the teens & 20s but development & culture resulted in 3 flags!

Would love to here from the club & state reasons as to why a bf in 2011 Moloney is gone & so many of our picks have failed?

Was our culture that poor?

Just want to know how after playing in finals in 06 the club has been a train wreck!

There certainly comes a point where one has to question Harrington's role. Our list is less than desirable and he's the "list manager'.

Those in judgment at the club will decide whether he's been forthright enough.

What was wrong with them and how should they have been done differently?

Well you tried. He just wont answer it. Wonder why?

There certainly comes a point where one has to question Harrington's role. Our list is less than desirable and he's the "list manager'.

Those in judgment at the club will decide whether he's been forthright enough.

The penny will drop for you one day.

Well you tried. He just wont answer it. Wonder why?

The penny will drop for you one day.

So the list manager isn't accountable for the state of the list ?

You're not that [censored] that bangs on about pick 100 being as good as pick one are you ? If you are you're the dumbest poster that graced this site.

Maybe ask someone who is in charge of list management at a half-decent club?

I throw Harrington's name out there becuase it's amazing the flack Prendergast and Bailey is getting while the guy who directly oversaw all of their operations gets absolutely no mention on here.

Mind-boggling really.

You didnt answer the reasonable question raised by Nasher.

Mind boggling indeed.

Early draft picks are no guarantees!

Saints had plenty but yet no flag to show for!

Geelong picks generally were in the teens & 20s but development & culture resulted in 3 flags!

Just want to know how after playing in finals in 06 the club has been a train wreck!

You could not be more wrong about early draft picks.

FFS, St Kilda were the bounce of a football away from a flag. And the top picks like Hayes Riewoldt and Del Santo were crucial in their success over the past decade.

And Geelong had Bartel (2001 - 8), Mackie (2002-7), Ottens (1998 -2) plus they had gold guilt edged top 1 or 2 picks in their year in Ablett, Scarlett and Hawkins

I can understand the train wreck of 2007 at the end of an era for MFC.

However to be in another trainwreck in 2012 while seemingly going backwards as a Club on field is indeed a very good question.

So the list manager isn't accountable for the state of the list ?

Harrington's role like all in the FD should be scrutinised. I have no issue with the rebuild strategy of 5 years ago but have all parts in the puzzle done their bit

Which actions directly attributable to Tim Harrington do you take exception to?

From my viewpoint I believe one of the reasons JMcD was shown the door was because we needed to free-up the list to participate fully in the National Draft as there were few players coming out of contract that year. When Newton and Meeson were at the Club they agreed to move from the primary list to the rookie list in order to free up spots on the primary list.

Next year is looming as a further difficulty with only Watts, Gawn, Tynan, Taggert, Gysberts, Morton, Sylvia, Davey, Martin, and Fitzpatrick coming out of contract.

Should, Gysberts and Martin be traded this year these picks have to used in the 2012 draft. That only leaves Davey and Morton as a possible delistings in 2013. Of course other players maybe moved on but in my view they show too much potential for this to happen.

With National draftees given 2 yr contracts and Free Agents and new trades that may come in also with 2 or more year contracts, this leaves very little room to move next year. Also if Davey and Morton are moved on this year as well, 2013 is looming as another year the Club is boxing itself in with minimal room to move.

Unless of course they delist players that we at demonland believe should be retained.

List management has not been great in recent times and next year looms as a doozy. I wonder whether others at the Club are aware of this.

I explained that the coaches input is into the type of footballer he needs given the list management, game plan etc. The coach cant possible know the full population of junior talent and needs to rely on the skills of his recruitment team for talent, fitness team for fitness. There is no doubt that the recruitment manager would have to justify his beliefs or opinions. Who said anything about "carte blanche"? Please re read my earlier email.

Rebuttal for rebuttal sake is moot. The point is the coach along with the entire FD would direct recruiters as to the type of player they want. As they all do, the coach sits with the recruiting manager at the trade table, watches how the cards fall and directs the pick that way. No-one has said the coach would possibly know the full population of junior talent, either can the recruiting manager for that matter. There are scouts that do that job in every state and in the bush. At the end of the day, the coach will get what he asks for. Simple as that.

Harrington's role like all in the FD should be scrutinised. I have no issue with the rebuild strategy of 5 years ago but have all parts in the puzzle done their bit

That all depends on where the real problems are coming from. I'd be surprised if the originator of the thread even new Tim's role, hence why he never raised his name.

Why would you scrutinise TH if the real problems where not originating from his department? The "rebuild" is well under way, more changes will and are being made.

Its obvious the people at the top know where the real problems are coming from and action is being taken. Sadly the same cant be said for many of our supporters around here.

FFS, St Kilda were the bounce of a football away from a flag. And the top picks like Hayes Riewoldt and Del Santo were crucial in their success over the past decade.

You probably should throw in Goddard & Kosi.

Question is, where these players a bounce away from a premiership under Grant Thomas? Sure they made the finals, but where they a real threat, under Thomas? Talk to me about Thomas's game plan?

Under Thomas many St Kilda supporters wanted to show many of their top draft picks the door.

How did the same group go under Lyon? Two grand finals in a row? Talk to me about Lyons game plan and ability to develop players?

How is he going at Fremantle, you know the team Harvey couldn't get to make the finals?

Did the recruiters get it wrong with Thomas yet right with Lyon? Did Fremantles recruiters get it wrong with Harvey yet right with Lyon?

I know plenty question there. But is it possible high draft picks are only "gold" if they are in the right hands?

I know plenty question there. But is it possible high draft picks are only "gold" if they are in the right hands?

Or is Lyon's game-plan and structures far better than Harvey's ? Does his game-plan and structures help protect some player's weaknesses and by nature do these different roles play to their strengths ? Are they harder to play against as a collective team than they were before, as opposed to any wide eyed break-through in individual development - especially in less than a year ?

There's undeniable evidence that early picks have more talent and are usually the better players of the competition and indeed their team; but equally recruiters make mistakes in evaluating how some players will take the next step to AFL level. Development is important, coaching structures are important, and getting the best talent into the club is important.

To argue one, but forsake the other is too limiting.

Port's best player is Boak - top 10 pick

Adelaide's best player is Dangerfield - top 10 pick (or Thompson - first round)

Collingwood's best player is Pendlebury - top 5 pick (some will say Swan)

Hawthorn's best player is Franklin or Hodge - top 5 picks (or Rioli - first round)

St.Kilda's best player is Riewoldt - top 5 pick

Richmond's best player is Cotchin and before him Deledio - top 5 picks (add Martin - top5)

Melbourne's best player is Clark - top 10 pick

Footscray's best player is Griffen - top 5 pick

Carlton's best player is Judd or Murphy - top 5 picks

Essendon and the Suns best are Father/Sons in Watson and Ablett

Geelong's best player is Selwood, Bartel, Scarlett and now probably Hawkins - either top 10 picks, or Father/Sons

The Giants' best players are their top 10 picks

Brisbane's best player Brown is a Father Son

Fremantle's best player is Pavlich - a top 5 pick

Is there a pattern emerging ?

Only a fool wouldn't understand that top 5 and 10 picks are gold. And yes, for the umpteenth time, development is important. Get the early picks right and develop them and the entire list accordingly. But just as obviously there will always be a Dowler, Cook, Thorp and others that were taken too early in the draft, or not with the prerequisite application to cut it at AFL level.

And it's not as cut and dried as making it, or not naking it. It's also about getting the best player at your draft round pick. Of course there are no guarantees in anything, but in nearly every case over the last 10 years we could have chosen better picks in the top 20. Instead of Tapscott there's a Fyfe, or for Blease there's a Shuey, Redden, Hannebery and Sloan. And the list goes on. And when we did get it right he left.

So it's not just that all of our top 20 picks won't make it, as many will play a lot of footy, but it's that nearly every one of them wasn't the best player available when we read their name out.

We have to get better and I hope/believe we will.

From my viewpoint I believe one of the reasons JMcD was shown the door was because we needed to free-up the list to participate fully in the National Draft as there were few players coming out of contract that year. When Newton and Meeson were at the Club they agreed to move from the primary list to the rookie list in order to free up spots on the primary list.

Next year is looming as a further difficulty with only Watts, Gawn, Tynan, Taggert, Gysberts, Morton, Sylvia, Davey, Martin, and Fitzpatrick coming out of contract.

Should, Gysberts and Martin be traded this year these picks have to used in the 2012 draft. That only leaves Davey and Morton as a possible delistings in 2013. Of course other players maybe moved on but in my view they show too much potential for this to happen.

With National draftees given 2 yr contracts and Free Agents and new trades that may come in also with 2 or more year contracts, this leaves very little room to move next year. Also if Davey and Morton are moved on this year as well, 2013 is looming as another year the Club is boxing itself in with minimal room to move.

Unless of course they delist players that we at demonland believe should be retained.

List management has not been great in recent times and next year looms as a doozy. I wonder whether others at the Club are aware of this.

I hope Neeld, Viney and Harrington know what they are doing because there will be few players out of contract next year that we would not want to keep.

Most clubs have a third of their list out of contract each year, usually with a balance of experience and youth. In MFC case apart from Davey and Morton all the players coming out of contract will be young developing players that you would most likely want to keep. I can definitely see problems at the end of next year.

Or is Lyon's game-plan and structures far better than Harvey's ? Does his game-plan and structures help protect some player's weaknesses and by nature do these different roles play to their strengths ? Are they harder to play against as a collective team than they were before, as opposed to any wide eyed break-through in individual development - especially in less than a year ?

There's undeniable evidence that early picks have more talent and are usually the better players of the competition and indeed their team; but equally recruiters make mistakes in evaluating how some players will take the next step to AFL level. Development is important, coaching structures are important, and getting the best talent into the club is important.

To argue one, but forsake the other is too limiting.

Port's best player is Boak - top 10 pick

Adelaide's best player is Dangerfield - top 10 pick (or Thompson - first round)

Collingwood's best player is Pendlebury - top 5 pick (some will say Swan)

Hawthorn's best player is Franklin or Hodge - top 5 picks (or Rioli - first round)

St.Kilda's best player is Riewoldt - top 5 pick

Richmond's best player is Cotchin and before him Deledio - top 5 picks (add Martin - top5)

Melbourne's best player is Clark - top 10 pick

Footscray's best player is Griffen - top 5 pick

Carlton's best player is Judd or Murphy - top 5 picks

Essendon and the Suns best are Father/Sons in Watson and Ablett

Geelong's best player is Selwood, Bartel, Scarlett and now probably Hawkins - either top 10 picks, or Father/Sons

The Giants' best players are their top 10 picks

Brisbane's best player Brown is a Father Son

Fremantle's best player is Pavlich - a top 5 pick

Is there a pattern emerging ?

Only a fool wouldn't understand that top 5 and 10 picks are gold. And yes, for the umpteenth time, development is important. Get the early picks right and develop them and the entire list accordingly. But just as obviously there will always be a Dowler, Cook, Thorp and others that were taken too early in the draft, or not with the prerequisite application to cut it at AFL level.

And it's not as cut and dried as making it, or not naking it. It's also about getting the best player at your draft round pick. Of course there are no guarantees in anything, but in nearly every case over the last 10 years we could have chosen better picks in the top 20. Instead of Tapscott there's a Fyfe, or for Blease there's a Shuey, Redden, Hannebery and Sloan. And the list goes on. And when we did get it right he left.

So it's not just that all of our top 20 picks won't make it, as many will play a lot of footy, but it's that nearly every one of them wasn't the best player available when we read their name out.

We have to get better and I hope/believe we will.

On the whole I have no problems with what you are saying. However, were is the rest of the "story"? Where are the missed "best picks" from each team? Yes, ever team?

Is there a pattern emerging ?

Yes there is.

AFL football drafting is a "game" of probabilities. In reality all drafting is a "game' of probabilities. We accept that the "sweet spot" is around 5-15. However, the cost vs return is very poor in relation to your whole list.

AFL football is a team game. (No massive revelations there) Where you will make your greatest gains are primarily in two zones a/ The trade table!!!! With either an exchange of player/s or pick/s b/ Your depth via later selections. I should add the father & son process is a form of trade - you give up a pick to obtain a kid. These are where the "real" quality drafters and recruiters earn their keep.

Only a fool wouldn't understand that top 5 and 10 picks are gold.

Only someone behind the times would say this. 3-5 years ago i would have agreed with you. Today the game has moved forward.

Many "forum junkies" over value early picks, they fail to understand the diffirent nature and complexities each different draft offers. Put another way are all pick 5 the same - hell no. However, are the expectations on all picks 1's the same - hell yes. Are there other factors that effect the pick order? The list is too numerable to mention.

AFL football clubs have complex rating systems. Some do it better than others. However, this does not change the talent identification process. All players have talent. However, the key is whether you can maximise that talent to develop your whole list. Yes, game plans are vital, yes quality coaching is vital, yes quality elite fitness regimes are vital, yes quality injury prevention and recover are vital. "Choosing better picks" is so much hindsight its not funny - ever recruiter in the land would admit with the value of hindsight we should have done this or this pick was a mistake.

However, developing better game-plans, obtaining better coaches, developing elite fitness regimes, creating better injury prevention and recovery systems are what we are all about. Then you will see our top draft picks flourish, you will see our club a desired destination for all players.

What is done is done. The time is now to look forward. United as one is how we will get better - not looking in the rear vision mirror saying we should have done this or that at pick x.

On the whole I have no problems with what you are saying. However, were is the rest of the "story"? Where are the missed "best picks" from each team? Yes, ever team?

Yes there is.

AFL football drafting is a "game" of probabilities. In reality all drafting is a "game' of probabilities. We accept that the "sweet spot" is around 5-15. However, the cost vs return is very poor in relation to your whole list.

AFL football is a team game. (No massive revelations there) Where you will make your greatest gains are primarily in two zones a/ The trade table!!!! With either an exchange of player/s or pick/s b/ Your depth via later selections. I should add the father & son process is a form of trade - you give up a pick to obtain a kid. These are where the "real" quality drafters and recruiters earn their keep.

Only someone behind the times would say this. 3-5 years ago i would have agreed with you. Today the game has moved forward.

Many "forum junkies" over value early picks, they fail to understand the diffirent nature and complexities each different draft offers. Put another way are all pick 5 the same - hell no. However, are the expectations on all picks 1's the same - hell yes. Are there other factors that effect the pick order? The list is too numerable to mention.

AFL football clubs have complex rating systems. Some do it better than others. However, this does not change the talent identification process. All players have talent. However, the key is whether you can maximise that talent to develop your whole list. Yes, game plans are vital, yes quality coaching is vital, yes quality elite fitness regimes are vital, yes quality injury prevention and recover are vital. "Choosing better picks" is so much hindsight its not funny - ever recruiter in the land would admit with the value of hindsight we should have done this or this pick was a mistake.

However, developing better game-plans, obtaining better coaches, developing elite fitness regimes, creating better injury prevention and recovery systems are what we are all about. Then you will see our top draft picks flourish, you will see our club a desired destination for all players.

What is done is done. The time is now to look forward. United as one is how we will get better - not looking in the rear vision mirror saying we should have done this or that at pick x.

I really don't disagree with any of that. Other than the value of top 5 picks in most drafts. But yeah, some drafts (and top 5 picks) are crud. There's always a bit of luck in the draft you have particularly good access to.

Hawthorn go down twice and strike gold with Hodge, Franklin and Roughead, Collingwood go down for one year and get gold with Pendlebury and Thomas, and we get McLean/Sylvia from a shocking draft. Don't tell me there's no luck in footy.

I really don't disagree with any of that. Other than the value of top 5 picks in most drafts. But yeah, some drafts (and top 5 picks) are crud. There's always a bit of luck in the draft you have particularly good access to.

Hawthorn go down twice and strike gold with Hodge, Franklin and Roughead, Collingwood go down for one year and get gold with Pendlebury and Thomas, and we get McLean/Sylvia from a shocking draft. Don't tell me there's no luck in footy.

Cheers. We dont under value them. Just "top 5 picks" you are playing with fire, sadly its the icing on the cake not all the cake. Trust me I love icing as much as the next person.

Some times you make your own luck by spending up big, real big and real big consistently.

PS I dont know if I should say this it is a public forum but darn it - pre-186 I reckon you would have won the vote post-186 things changed in more ways than 1. B)

17 first rounders. No stars. No midfield.

The dicussion really begins and ends there doesn't it.

17 - 0 - 0

17 first rounders. No stars. No midfield.

The dicussion really begins and ends there doesn't it.

17 - 0 - 0

Oh but why so knowledgeable one?

17 first rounders. No stars. No midfield.

The dicussion really begins and ends there doesn't it.

17 - 0 - 0

There's only so many batterings our young team can take before they completely wither & even FO, retire or lose all self confidence and don't fulfil potential. One thing that has & never will change is that you need the mix of youth & veterans, I know it's stating the obvious but the balance has never been struck right and now I believe is the time for correction. On previous post bout Gysberts and so forth these are the hard decisions that are being made & believe there is more a collective effort now than the entire inner sanctum has produced in the past. ( eg knew a coach who spoke to Ratten when he was at Melbourne and was furious about Daniher never responding to his thoughts on gameday suggesting that 9/200 plays were generally used) Now it's bout a plan that won't see us in finals next yr but 1-2 yrs after IMO. Expecting significant improvement 2nd half next yr but hoping these talented kids IMO get the support they need now otherwise we are toast!!

If I can dare to be positive, clubs can change dramatically overnight. I think it was 2009 when the Swans changed their team. A good draft and trading period saw many new faces in their side. Kennedy and Mumford from other clubs, became stars. If we act wisely we can do the same.

[media=]