Three cheers for Neale (The Reverend)!

[H_T 2,941]

When we consider list management and planning ahead, the list that was handed to Bailey was nothing short of a disgrace.

We're still paying for the repercussions of Neale's topping up with second hand goods on the back of an aging list, not to mention the penalties handed down as a result of breaching the salary cap and "drafting thin" as a result in the early 2000's.

We're still seeing progress from those drafted from the start of the rebuild, but what makes it all the more difficult is the lack of senior players, leadership on our list (and of quality), and our clubs apparent failure to "hit" well in the draft and/or draft anything of significance to date (ie a star).

Learning a new structure has its teething problems with predominantly a young list - and a young list lacking quality and midfield class even more so.

We were left a carcass of a list and there were no guarantees with the senior players we had left after many senior players moved on over 3-4 year period, that the rebuild would be complete.

It was always going to be a massive rebuild, and no one knew exactly what would transpire in periods of change. Granted some of our draft picks haven't come on as well as we've all wished. Which extends time on turnaround.

People point to the year of 2010 and the win over the Swans by 73. And ask why ? What has transpired until now ? Why has it all gone amiss ?

Different game style, different list, different structure, different midfield dynamic to what we have had in rounds 1-4 this year. Different regime and strategy. And confidence.

Put in a fit Sylvia, Moloney and Jurrah over the last 4 weeks and our setup, dynamics, performance and even results would I guess would be a little different to a 0-4 and ~ 50% return.

The likes of Magner and a Couch excite many - especially those involved in Supercoach and Dreamteams, but they are a by-product of an immature, underdeveloped, lacking class options, midfield. IMO they are a stop gap measure of blue collar work horses for the short to medium term, until the FD can unearth class from within or through the coming draft(s). The type of class we haven't been able to find, period. Or at least since Scott Thompson left in Neale's years.

Now that there seems to be more clarity for those who have been unable to establish why our club is where it is (tongue in cheek), I wonder if they're prepared to hang on and support the club, instead of spruiking blindly that the last 4-5 years have been a complete waste without any understanding as to what has transpired and why ?

[Bonkers 910]

When we consider list management and planning ahead, the list that was handed to Bailey was nothing short of a disgrace.

We're still paying for the repercussions of Neale's topping up with second hand goods on the back of an aging list, not to mention the penalties handed down as a result of breaching the salary cap and "drafting thin" as a result in the early 2000's.

We're still seeing progress from those drafted from the start of the rebuild, but what makes it all the more difficult is the lack of senior players, leadership on our list (and of quality), and our clubs apparent failure to "hit" well in the draft and/or draft anything of significance to date (ie a star).

Learning a new structure has its teething problems with predominantly a young list - and a young list lacking quality and midfield class even more so.

We were left a carcass of a list and there were no guarantees with the senior players we had left after many senior players moved on over 3-4 year period, that the rebuild would be complete.

It was always going to be a massive rebuild, and no one knew exactly what would transpire in periods of change. Granted some of our draft picks haven't come on as well as we've all wished. Which extends time on turnaround.

People point to the year of 2010 and the win over the Swans by 73. And ask why ? What has transpired until now ? Why has it all gone amiss ?

Different game style, different list, different structure, different midfield dynamic to what we have had in rounds 1-4 this year. Different regime and strategy. And confidence.

Put in a fit Sylvia, Moloney and Jurrah over the last 4 weeks and our setup, dynamics, performance and even results would I guess would be a little different to a 0-4 and ~ 50% return.

The likes of Magner and a Couch excite many - especially those involved in Supercoach and Dreamteams, but they are a by-product of an immature, underdeveloped, lacking class options, midfield. IMO they are a stop gap measure of blue collar work horses for the short to medium term, until the FD can unearth class from within or through the coming draft(s). The type of class we haven't been able to find, period. Or at least since Scott Thompson left in Neale's years.

Now that there seems to be more clarity for those who have been unable to establish why our club is where it is (tongue in cheek), I wonder if they're prepared to hang on and support the club, instead of spruiking blindly that the last 4-5 years have been a complete waste without any understanding as to what has transpired and why ?

First of all I agree with your post. You brushed over how the club decided to rebuild, we have cleared probably 80% of the list since 2007-08 if not more.

The reason we are in the position we are in at the moment though is due to the clubs philosophy in regards to recruiting & list management as well as the investments being made into the FD. When the club decided to rebuild they decided to rebuild through the draft almost exclusively. Connolly & Schwab spoke at the time about attaining high draft picks & that it would be the panacea to future success. Well we all know this isn't true, the current situation is proof of that. A change in philosophy of player recruitment has to occur at the club. It is fine to attain high draft picks if you get them right & have the resources to develop them as well as senior players to show them the way, however that isn't the case currently at the MFC. The club needs to look at filling holes in the list with players from outside the the traditional U18 system & start making some smart decisions in regards to bringing in senior players similar to what Sydney has been doing for years(particularly in the midfield). The club has leaned too far to one direction of bringing in youth without giving them any senior players to follow. Whilst I am a strong believer in developing young players, a club has to be good at doing it they are going to adopt this philosophy as their primary focus. Perhaps the biggest failing over the last 3-4 years was that the club simply didn't have the resources & setup within the FD to adopt the youth development system as their sole means of player/list development.

[rpfc 27,393]

That's quite a rant, HT...

I agree with what you say - our list was continually topped up under Daniher and we struggled to recruit good kids and didn't have the money or where-with-all to develop the good ones we did have.

Turley, Ellis, Powell, Pickett, Vardy, Moorcroft, Heffernan, Chisholm, Johnson, Read and Bizzell were brought in with varying degrees of success because we didn't recruit kids and/or develop well.

One-dimensional 'pros' or 'battlers' like Ward, Wheatley, Walsh, Rigoni, Williams, Nicholson, Grgic, Godfrey, Ferguson, Collins, and Carroll were perservered with because we couldn't find more talented kids (or couldn't develop them) to replace them.

Bruce, White, Davey, Green, Robertson, Johnstone, and Yze were all great talents that we never were able to turn into A-grade performers (or whatever measure you wish to use).

And other clubs have done to Jolly and Thompson what we never could - turn talented players into consistent A-grade performers.

I hope, and have never had more reason to believe, that Neeld, Misson, and Craig can remedy this over the next few years.

But, back on Daniher - this is why we fell in a heap - recycled older players, coupled with older NQR players, and a tiny smattering of talented players not ready to shoulder the team's burdens nor progress themsleves.

Green, Bruce, Jamar, Davey, Bate, Dunn, Rivers, Sylvia, Jones, and Batram are all that's left of the 7 drafts that have built the best teams of today - 1999-2005.

[Its Time for Another 4,051]

That's quite a rant, HT...

I agree with what you say - our list was continually topped up under Daniher and we struggled to recruit good kids and didn't have the money or where-with-all to develop the good ones we did have.

Turley, Ellis, Powell, Pickett, Vardy, Moorcroft, Heffernan, Chisholm and Bizzell were brought in with varying degrees of success because we didn't recruit kids and/or develop well.

One-dimensional 'pros' or 'battlers' like Ward, Wheatley, Walsh, Rigoni, Williams, Nicholson, Grgic, Godfrey, Ferguson, Collins, and Carroll were perservered with because we couldn't find more talented kids (or couldn't develop them) to replace them.

Bruce, White, Davey, Green, Robertson, Johnstone, and Yze were all great talents that we never were able to turn into A-grade performers (or whatever measure you wish to use).

And other clubs have done to Jolly and Thompson what we never could - turn talented players into consistent A-grade performers.

I hope, and have never had more reason to believe, that Neeld, Misson, and Craig can remedy this over the next few years.

But, back on Daniher - this is why we fell in a heap - recycled older players, coupled with older NQR players, and a tiny smattering of talented players not ready to shoulder the team's burdens nor progress themsleves.

Green, Bruce, Jamar, Davey, Bate, Dunn, Rivers, Sylvia, Jones, and Batram are all that's left of the 7 drafts that have built the best teams of today - 1999-2005.

And of that group, 3 were dumped out of the leadership group this year and one is in and shouldn't be. One, after taking years to develop looks to be going backwards this year, 3 shouldn't be getting a game, 1 is probably on their last chance this year when they come back after disappointing thus far.

Look at the Swans, Nth, even Adelaide who are rebuilding at the moment, yet have solid cores of players from those draft years to guide the new players. Our rebuild is far greater than any of us realised.

You really should extend this thread to the recruiting post Daniher as well. It doesn't look much better at this point.

[rpfc 27,393]

You really should extend this thread to the recruiting post Daniher as well. It doesn't look much better at this point.

Those last three words are crucial.

I think it is too early for 2007 and beyond.

Even Petterd is flirting with us...

And he is from the 2006 draft...

[H_T 2,941]

Those last three words are crucial.

I think it is too early for 2007 and beyond.

Even Petterd is flirting with us...

And he is from the 2006 draft...

You can add Phil Read to your list above too rpfc.

There could be others...

I think it's a little too early too.

We may have to look to another ruck in the rookie draft later this year too. And start developing him as insurance for down the track.

[wisedog 326]

Jared Rivers

Brent Moloney

Colin Garland

James Frawley

Brad Green

Clint Bartram

Mark Jamar

Colin Sylvia

Nathan Jones

Ricky Petterd

Aaron Davey

Mathew Bate

Lynden Dunn

These are the players that remain on our list from the Daniher era. In fairness, he at least left us with a solid young defence. Attempts were made to recuit forwards to replace Robertson and Neitz (Bate, Dunn, Newton, Molan and Miller) but none of them ever came on.

Here's our full list in 2007.

[H_T 2,941]

Jared Rivers

Brent Moloney

Colin Garland

James Frawley

Brad Green

Clint Bartram

Mark Jamar

Colin Sylvia

Nathan Jones

Ricky Petterd

Aaron Davey

Mathew Bate

Lynden Dunn

These are the players that remain on our list from the Daniher era. In fairness, he at least left us with a solid young defence. Attempts were made to recuit forwards to replace Robertson and Neitz (Bate, Dunn, Newton, Molan and Miller) but none of them ever came on.

Here's our full list in 2007.

A very young defence- Rivers, Frawley, Garland. (3) And Frawley and Garland had only played a handful of games when Daniher decided he had enough and walked mid year.

[MikeyJ 60]

And other clubs have done to Jolly and Thompson what we never could - turn talented players into consistent A-grade performers.

I mostly agree with your first post, but for this statement. Thompson's 2004 was very good as part of a reasonably competitive midfield before he walked to Adelaide. He showed every sign of being a future A-grader and I have no doubt we did all we could to retain him.

Jolly is a tough one. Should we have played him more at White's expense? In hindsight, probably, but who was to know the AFL Commission was going to hobble the 2004 AA ruckman with its centre circle rule? We tried playing both Jolly and White up forward but it didn't work in either case. White was one of the league's most dominant rucks when we let Jolly go and I think it was the right decision at the time, even though it may not have been correct in the long run.

[rpfc 27,393]

I mostly agree with your first post, but for this statement. Thompson's 2004 was very good as part of a reasonably competitive midfield before he walked to Adelaide. He showed every sign of being a future A-grader and I have no doubt we did all we could to retain him.

Jolly is a tough one. Should we have played him more at White's expense? In hindsight, probably, but who was to know the AFL Commission was going to hobble the 2004 AA ruckman with its centre circle rule? We tried playing both Jolly and White up forward but it didn't work in either case. White was one of the league's most dominant rucks when we let Jolly go and I think it was the right decision at the time, even though it may not have been correct in the long run.

Thompson was showing great signs but I have been surprised by how far he has gone. A truly A-grade player.

Hypothetical I know, but we have not been able to develop such a talent since Neitz.

[bing181 8,149]

Perhaps the biggest failing over the last 3-4 years was that the club simply didn't have the resources & setup within the FD to adopt the youth development system as their sole means of player/list development.

... or to attract decent serious players from opposition clubs, especially when GC and GWS were able to throw their checkbooks at them. We would never have got Mitch Clark in 2010 ... "come and check out our facilities Mitch".

As for the famous Sydney win (and a couple last year, Essendon, Adelaide), they weren't our benchmarks or typical games. We weren't playing like that every week, far from it, we haven't necessarily gone backwards over this season, and there's nothing to say we won't have a "Sydney" game this year. Let's remember, only 4 teams finished below us last year.

[jnrmac 18,914]

When we consider list management and planning ahead, the list that was handed to Bailey was nothing short of a disgrace.

We're still paying for the repercussions of Neale's topping up with second hand goods on the back of an aging list, not to mention the penalties handed down as a result of breaching the salary cap and "drafting thin" as a result in the early 2000's.

We're still seeing progress from those drafted from the start of the rebuild, but what makes it all the more difficult is the lack of senior players, leadership on our list (and of quality), and our clubs apparent failure to "hit" well in the draft and/or draft anything of significance to date (ie a star).

Learning a new structure has its teething problems with predominantly a young list - and a young list lacking quality and midfield class even more so.

We were left a carcass of a list and there were no guarantees with the senior players we had left after many senior players moved on over 3-4 year period, that the rebuild would be complete.

It was always going to be a massive rebuild, and no one knew exactly what would transpire in periods of change. Granted some of our draft picks haven't come on as well as we've all wished. Which extends time on turnaround.

People point to the year of 2010 and the win over the Swans by 73. And ask why ? What has transpired until now ? Why has it all gone amiss ?

Different game style, different list, different structure, different midfield dynamic to what we have had in rounds 1-4 this year. Different regime and strategy. And confidence.

Put in a fit Sylvia, Moloney and Jurrah over the last 4 weeks and our setup, dynamics, performance and even results would I guess would be a little different to a 0-4 and ~ 50% return.

The likes of Magner and a Couch excite many - especially those involved in Supercoach and Dreamteams, but they are a by-product of an immature, underdeveloped, lacking class options, midfield. IMO they are a stop gap measure of blue collar work horses for the short to medium term, until the FD can unearth class from within or through the coming draft(s). The type of class we haven't been able to find, period. Or at least since Scott Thompson left in Neale's years.

Now that there seems to be more clarity for those who have been unable to establish why our club is where it is (tongue in cheek), I wonder if they're prepared to hang on and support the club, instead of spruiking blindly that the last 4-5 years have been a complete waste without any understanding as to what has transpired and why ?

1. Give me Neale's Win loss record anyday over what has been served up since.

2. The club was essentially bankrupt with a useless Board. We had extremely limited resources.

3. Our recruiting was very ordinary. Having said that we were also a bit unlucky with guys like Nick Smith and Luke Molan. Why we would agree to recruit BOTH the Cockatoo-Collins brothers I do not know.

4. Gutnick should shoulder the blame for a lot of it. He went to the AFL and squealed on cap breaches that cost us 2 drafts effectively. We have never recovered in that 24-28 bracket.

5. Daniher certainly did not play young players and left Yze, White and RObbo around for too long playing games when they did'nt deserve them.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I mostly agree with your first post, but for this statement. Thompson's 2004 was very good as part of a reasonably competitive midfield before he walked to Adelaide. He showed every sign of being a future A-grader and I have no doubt we did all we could to retain him.

Jolly is a tough one. Should we have played him more at White's expense? In hindsight, probably, but who was to know the AFL Commission was going to hobble the 2004 AA ruckman with its centre circle rule? We tried playing both Jolly and White up forward but it didn't work in either case. White was one of the league's most dominant rucks when we let Jolly go and I think it was the right decision at the time, even though it may not have been correct in the long run.

Good post MikeyJ. Thompson was class in 2004 but I know why he left officially but am wondering why he actually left?

You are spot on with the Jolly/White issue. Neither at the time could play forward. Jolly was mediocre in 2004 and became a petulant sook. He wanted out in 2004 with a year on his contract. We traded him for a first round pick and we use it get Lynden Dunn. Bad pick.

1. Give me Neale's Win loss record anyday over what has been served up since.

2. The club was essentially bankrupt with a useless Board. We had extremely limited resources.

3. Our recruiting was very ordinary. Having said that we were also a bit unlucky with guys like Nick Smith and Luke Molan. Why we would agree to recruit BOTH the Cockatoo-Collins brothers I do not know.

4. Gutnick should shoulder the blame for a lot of it. He went to the AFL and squealed on cap breaches that cost us 2 drafts effectively. We have never recovered in that 24-28 bracket.

5. Daniher certainly did not play young players and left Yze, White and RObbo around for too long playing games when they did'nt deserve them.

1. ND did well given the on field and off field resources we had. Neitz, White and Yze have been rightly criticised at times but they did form a back bone for this team.

2. We had a string of underfunded indifferent adminstrations who at times behaved for their own interest.

3. Smith and Molan were poor picks front and centre. We recruited the C-Collins brothers pre ND in 1996. Worst decision we did times 2.

4. Salary cap stuff hurt us. It would have have been more in Gutnick normal corporate behaviour if he had said nothing.

5. Complete myth. None of the young players were competing with Yze, White and Robbo. We erred in trading for PJ and Pickett. We stuffed up the 2001 draft badly.

[QueenC 74]

I hope, and have never had more reason to believe, that Neeld, Misson, and Craig can remedy this over the next few years.

We all have our fingers crossed here rpfc.....

But I think you're right in there is reason to believe despite were we currently find ourselves.

[Bay Riffin 1,413]

These are the players that remain on our list from the Daniher era. In fairness, he at least left us with a solid young defence. Attempts were made to recuit forwards to replace Robertson and Neitz (Bate, Dunn, Newton, Molan and Miller) but none of them ever came on.

This is a critical point. We seemed to have recruited guys who weren’t made for key position. Take away their abilities for a moment, only Newton and Molan were of real size to take on a key position role.

Even Cook does not look the right size for a key position. Collingwood ended up getting Dawes who has no more talent than Bate or Dunn, but can play a role in a premiership side because he is big enough. I think i would put more money on Williams plucked from the lower leagues to make it ahead of Cook, even with Cooks ability.

[Fat Tony 4,374]

When we consider list management and planning ahead, the list that was handed to Bailey was nothing short of a disgrace.

We're still paying for the repercussions of Neale's topping up with second hand goods on the back of an aging list, not to mention the penalties handed down as a result of breaching the salary cap and "drafting thin" as a result in the early 2000's.

We're still seeing progress from those drafted from the start of the rebuild, but what makes it all the more difficult is the lack of senior players, leadership on our list (and of quality), and our clubs apparent failure to "hit" well in the draft and/or draft anything of significance to date (ie a star).

Learning a new structure has its teething problems with predominantly a young list - and a young list lacking quality and midfield class even more so.

We were left a carcass of a list and there were no guarantees with the senior players we had left after many senior players moved on over 3-4 year period, that the rebuild would be complete.

It was always going to be a massive rebuild, and no one knew exactly what would transpire in periods of change. Granted some of our draft picks haven't come on as well as we've all wished. Which extends time on turnaround.

People point to the year of 2010 and the win over the Swans by 73. And ask why ? What has transpired until now ? Why has it all gone amiss ?

Different game style, different list, different structure, different midfield dynamic to what we have had in rounds 1-4 this year. Different regime and strategy. And confidence.

Put in a fit Sylvia, Moloney and Jurrah over the last 4 weeks and our setup, dynamics, performance and even results would I guess would be a little different to a 0-4 and ~ 50% return.

The likes of Magner and a Couch excite many - especially those involved in Supercoach and Dreamteams, but they are a by-product of an immature, underdeveloped, lacking class options, midfield. IMO they are a stop gap measure of blue collar work horses for the short to medium term, until the FD can unearth class from within or through the coming draft(s). The type of class we haven't been able to find, period. Or at least since Scott Thompson left in Neale's years.

Now that there seems to be more clarity for those who have been unable to establish why our club is where it is (tongue in cheek), I wonder if they're prepared to hang on and support the club, instead of spruiking blindly that the last 4-5 years have been a complete waste without any understanding as to what has transpired and why ?

Great post.

The situation with Daniher reflects the conflict of interest that exists between clubs and senior coaches. Do you try for a flag when you don’t quite have the talent to achieve it? Daniher realised he was running out of time to achieve his goal of a premiership and topped up. It was unsuccessful and we paid for it heavily for it. Our situation was no different to what occurred at Richmond under Wallace and under Frawley and at Brisbane under Voss. For this reason, list management decisions should be, by and large, taken out of the hands of the coach.

However, the key reason we are still where we are is our poor drafting record. We have also been too conservative in moving on young players while they still maintain some value.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

This is a critical point. We seemed to have recruited guys who weren’t made for key position. Take away their abilities for a moment, only Newton and Molan were of real size to take on a key position role.

Even Cook does not look the right size for a key position. Collingwood ended up getting Dawes who has no more talent than Bate or Dunn, but can play a role in a premiership side because he is big enough. I think i would put more money on Williams plucked from the lower leagues to make it ahead of Cook, even with Cooks ability.

Cook is 196cm.

Dawes is 193cm\

Bate 192cm

Dunn 192 cm

Pavlich is 191cm

The point is that Dawes plays a role properly.

IMO I think Bate and Dunn were bad selections period and time has proven that.

For this reason, list management decisions should be, by and large, taken out of the hands of the coach.

However, the key reason we are still where we are is our poor drafting record. We have also been too conservative in moving on young players while they still maintain some value.

Craig Cameron was in charge of list management at MFC under Daniher.

Got any plausible examples of not moving on young players who had some value. That is issue is list management not poor drafting

[Fat Tony 4,374]

Got any plausible examples of not moving on young players who had some value. That is issue is list management not poor drafting

Pretty much every early pick other than Frawley and Jones, but the best examples would be Morton, Bate, Petterd and Bennell.

[pikeout 41]

This is the most sensible discussion on the boards at the moment. Ahhhhhhhh the cockatoo-collins------I was there for their first game. One of them flew for a mark one-handed 5m in front of the ball.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Pretty much every early pick other than Frawley and Jones, but the best examples would be Morton, Bate, Petterd and Bennell.

You have not succeeded there. If a young player is to have any value then he has to perform. And if he is performing why would the Club get rid of them.

How much would we have got for under performing players???

Mortons first 2 years were on track...so why would we have traded him then?

Its ironic you pick out Frawley and Jones who both struggled in their first 2 years. You would have diced them on the trade table for very little.

Its very easy with hindsight to say shoulda coulda woulda. Its a pity that when you do think about it your argument does not hold water.

[warren dean 193]

You have not succeeded there. If a young player is to have any value then he has to perform. And if he is performing why would the Club get rid of them.

How much would we have got for under performing players???

Mortons first 2 years were on track...so why would we have traded him then?

Its ironic you pick out Frawley and Jones who both struggled in their first 2 years. You would have diced them on the trade table for very little.

Its very easy with hindsight to say shoulda coulda woulda. Its a pity that when you do think about it your argument does not hold water.

Bit harsh on Jonesy. Runner up in the Bluey in his second season( 2007), and rising star noms (for what they're worth) in 2006 and 2007.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Yeah. I hate the ND hate on this site. He's still the best we've had in my time. He was never great, but I thought he was good for the club and did what he had to do.

The issue isn't as much with MFC, which has expanded and grown yearly... it's with the AFL itself, and the fact it's horribly weighted towards richer bigger clubs. In any 5 year period, usually, Melbourne should have a good crack at it for 2-3 of them on average. Yet the rich clubs liek West Coast have one wooden spoon, then are top 4 quality and now are on top...

They can afford the coaches and players... We lose them. It's money.

[Fat Tony 4,374]

You have not succeeded there. If a young player is to have any value then he has to perform. And if he is performing why would the Club get rid of them. How much would we have got for under performing players??? Mortons first 2 years were on track...so why would we have traded him then? Its ironic you pick out Frawley and Jones who both struggled in their first 2 years. You would have diced them on the trade table for very little. Its very easy with hindsight to say shoulda coulda woulda. Its a pity that when you do think about it your argument does not hold water.

As I said initially, drafting has been the key issue.

Of course it is easy to say which players we should have traded in hindsight. But IMO it must be easier to predict if a player has a future after they have had two years in the system.

Going forward, Tapscott is a player I think needs to start showing more and find a position.

[pantaloons 2,018]

Neale Daniher was a fine coach for this club. I can't look back angrily at him for the state of our list at the end of 2007. There are a few things that people are picking up on here. Firstly, the topping up. Some of the mature players brought in under Daniher's reign were Pickett, Read, Funcke, Moorcroft, Ellis, Vardy, Bizzell and Moloney. Pickett and Read were brought in specifically to address a glaring weakness of the team - toughness. That may not have resulted in helping us win a flag, but I thought they were the right moves at the time and stand by that. Funcke was a weird decision, but Ellis, Moorcroft, Vardy and Bizzell were all brought in to address positional needs, and that's good. I subscribe to the philosophy around drafting best available regardless of position, and trading for needs. Neale brought in players who could help the team win - which after all, is a fairly key component of footy. Ultimately, we were denied the ultimate in 1998 by a disgusting finals system and in 2000 by one of the best single season teams of all time, and in 2004-06 gave very good accounts of ourselves before injury/lack of superstars and midfield dominance saw the premature end of us. Daniher would have dudded us all by not going all out for it.

Secondly, the drafting. This is the key stuff up, and yes as another poster has highlighted the danger of coaches having too much say in draft picks, we saw this first hand with him requesting the toughest player in the 2001 draft crop and Cameron selecting Molan at 9. Cameron has to bear much of the responsibility for the way the list was comprised at the end of 2007. His parade of draft busts were embarrassing, and his failures in the first round of the 2001, 2002 and 2004 drafts in particular go some way to explaining how we got here. I know not every club makes every first round pick a winner, but they also compensate with some later games or at least one superstar calibre player drafted, but not here.

On development, what percentage blame can be attributed to Daniher? I don't know, but the club is responsible for paying for this area, and Daniher managed to get us to the finals more often than not in spite of the worst facilities in the league, little FD spending, and poor recruiting.

2007 let's not forget was an injury apocalypse the likes of which I haven't witness before or since. We came into that season the best Victorian team in the AFL and big things were expected. Our list upon Neale's departure had the following players:

Youngsters: Buckley, Jones, McLean, Bate, Frawley, Sylvia, Dunn, Petterd, C Johnson, Bartram, Garland, Newton and Bode.

Mid-age: Green, Bruce, Moloney, Wheatley, Miller, P Johnson, Carroll, Bell, Rivers, Godfrey, Ferguson, Davey, Warnock, Jamar

Senior: Neitz, Robertson, White, Yze, McDonald, Johnstone, Holland, Whelan

Retiring: Brown, Bizzell, Pickett

He also left the incumbent with pick 4 in the National Draft to work with. The rebuild was a decision the club made, it was not forced upon them because Daniher fed them a vomit burger. I'm not saying it was the wrong decision, but it was a decision - from what you hear not all coaches who went through the interviews for the Melbourne job in 2007 would have taken the same path, but thats hearsay. Regardless, the above list looks a lot better had we not butchered so many first round picks. Neale did his job in terms of coaching a team well on a shoestring budget, and was always prepared to publicly promote the club.

[Fork 'em 6,507]

Danihers biggest problem was he was a victim of our lazy culture.

Explain why we could play for a flag in 2000 with players like Neitz , Uze , Farmer ,Robertson etc in there prime and young guns like Green and Bruce showing plenty and then fall to 11th the next year.

Had a decent year and played some cracking football in a semi against adelaide in '02.

Dropped to 14th in '03.

Sit on top in rd18 of '04 to loose the last 4 games and knocked out've the elimination by the Bombers.

Finished 7th in '05.

I haven't bothered mentioning the slumps we had during the good years either when whe'd drop strings of games or lose crucial matches to bottom sides.

I've had issue with Daniher playing favorites etc but really he didn't know if he was Artha or Martha half the time.

It was during his reign that the phrase " We just didn't come to play." was regularly trotted out.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Fork 'em