What do I win for my efforts?

A bucket of sand

Why?! Very few experts had players in a different order to what we ended up drafting them (barring maybe Cook).

Don't let hindsight let you think you thought better at the time.

It doesn't matter what I thought at the time. I wasn't paid to get it right. I'm not employed by the club to draft the best talent in the land. I'm not employed $200K plus to bring the best talent to the MFC. Do understand the difference ? As a supporter I'm here to say either, "gee, Tom McDonald was a good get after pick 50", or "gee, Cook was a wasted first round pick when we good have had Atley".

Clearly we've made numerous drafting blunders, like all clubs, and we need to do better with our talent identification. Or are you happy being [censored] ?

Hawthorn drafted crap early picks in Thorp, Dowler, etc, but mixed with their crap they landed some guns. And yes, sometimes that's the luck of the quality of the draft. We had great picks in 2003, but nobody would deny we had great picks in a terrible draft. That's called being "unlucky". But we've also made bad selections. Hawthorn got great picks in the top 5 and we didn't. Richmond stuffed up too. Are their supporters allowed to use "hindsight" ?

If I name the selections we've got wrong one of a few things will happen. Nuffies will either disagree that they were bad selections, say we haven't developed them properly, blame the coach, blame injuries, want to give them more and more and more time, then give them some more time, or accuse me of using "hindsight" because I didn't say they were bad selections at the time.

Surely it's not a question of how many, rather hard nosed decisions based on the players past performances and potential upside.

On the issue of upside a great many players have none for reasons already well documented, ie, Bate, Dunn etc etc.

Others have either been badly coached or have inflated opinions of themselves and their skill levels, ie Morton.

Some are needing an inspiring coach to exploit their potential such as Blease, Watts and Cook. My reservation on Neeld at this point is he hasn't given them licence in any game I know of to play with freedom and flair. I suspect he had poor knowledge and respect for Melbourne list prior to coming and has never coached a game for the club where players have trotted their offensive stuff.

It doesn't matter what I thought at the time. I wasn't paid to get it right. I'm not employed by the club to draft the best talent in the land. I'm not employed $200K plus to bring the best talent to the MFC. Do understand the difference ? As a supporter I'm here to say either, "gee, Tom McDonald was a good get after pick 50", or "gee, Cook was a wasted first round pick when we good have had Atley".

Clearly we've made numerous drafting blunders, like all clubs, and we need to do better with our talent identification. Or are you happy being [censored] ?

Hawthorn drafted crap early picks in Thorp, Dowler, etc, but mixed with their crap they landed some guns. And yes, sometimes that's the luck of the quality of the draft. We had great picks in 2003, but nobody would deny we had great picks in a terrible draft. That's called being "unlucky". But we've also made bad selections. Hawthorn got great picks in the top 5 and we didn't. Richmond stuffed up too. Are their supporters allowed to use "hindsight" ?

If I name the selections we've got wrong one of a few things will happen. Nuffies will either disagree that they were bad selections, say we haven't developed them properly, blame the coach, blame injuries, want to give them more and more and more time, then give them some more time, or accuse me of using "hindsight" because I didn't say they were bad selections at the time.

You totally missed the point so I'll explain it for you.

Drafting is not an exact science, but these days it's a pretty good guess, and we haven't drafted anyone in a vastly different spot other than where they had been widely tipped to go.

Now, stay with me here... You don't always get them right, no one does as you have pointed out, but the point I'm making is (take a breath)...

Our development of these players has generally failed, it's a well known fact now, and it's why we are where we're at.

I'm sorry that's not as sexy as blabbing on about the wage of a recruiter and how it should mean they never make a mistake, but that's the simple matter of it.

And by the way, if I see one more poster here using lines like "or are you happy being [censored]?!" or the old favourite "accepting mediocrity" I'll hurl... Don't try and put words into others mouths, try and make your point with sense rather than trying to tie in something unrelated as to redirect.

You totally missed the point so I'll explain it for you.

Drafting is not an exact science, but these days it's a pretty good guess, and we haven't drafted anyone in a vastly different spot other than where they had been widely tipped to go.

Now, stay with me here... You don't always get them right, no one does as you have pointed out, but the point I'm making is (take a breath)...

Our development of these players has generally failed, it's a well known fact now, and it's why we are where we're at.

I'm sorry that's not as sexy as blabbing on about the wage of a recruiter and how it should mean they never make a mistake, but that's the simple matter of it.

And by the way, if I see one more poster here using lines like "or are you happy being [censored]?!" or the old favourite "accepting mediocrity" I'll hurl... Don't try and put words into others mouths, try and make your point with sense rather than trying to tie in something unrelated as to redirect.

So they're all great, but haven't been developed properly ?

Congratulations ! It's on the list.

So they're all great, but haven't been developed properly ?

Congratulations ! It's on the list.

Geez mate, you missed the point again... Strike two

Did I say they were all great players? What I said was they were all drafted about where they were expected to be, so don't blame the drafting. Some might have gone on to become great, some might not have, but they simply haven't been developed properly so we don't really know.

Geez mate, you missed the point again... Strike two

Did I say they were all great players? What I said was they were all drafted about where they were expected to be, so don't blame the drafting. Some might have gone on to become great, some might not have, but they simply haven't been developed properly so we don't really know.

There's a skill to drafting the right players. Yes, they were all expected to be drafted, and some in the vicinity they were drafted, but there's a skill in getting it right. Some recruiters get it right and some have a habit of getting them wrong. Some have a vision as to where a player will excel in the AFL system and some recruiters choose a Bate, or Dunn who are "tweeners" and never seem completely comfortable finding a role.

There's a reason that some recruiters are better than others. It happens in every industry. Just because we drafted players from a pool of consensus doesn't mean they were good picks.

And you think I'm struggling to grasp it ?

The mess we are in is because of our recruiting and development pre-Prendergast reading their names out.

Our recruiting in the last 5 years has been nothing to write home about but it has been adequate. The real deficit is in development and sport science as I repeat ad nauseum...

The mess we are in is because of our recruiting and development pre-Prendergast reading their names out.

Our recruiting in the last 5 years has been nothing to write home about but it has been adequate. The real deficit is in development and sport science as I repeat ad nauseum...

I don't think it is that simplistic but I've little doubt that the club has had a culture which isn't conducive to elite performance. I can think of a number of high profile players/picks that have been known pissheads.

I think the handling of some players has been poor & no doubt our sports science & fitness programs have been underfunded, however, it isn't the main factor in Morton or Watts shirking contests.

It's also about the player's DNA - Judd would've been a champion anywhere. Jones has worked on his game to the point where he'll be a solid B grader, Jack Viney will stop at nothing to be the best he can be. I think it's imperative to get talent on the list but they have to want it.

It's funny how bad this team truly is.

One of two things has happened:

1. Bailey picked good players, but the club just can't develop them

2. Bailey just picked a [censored] team that is even shitter in a tough system

There's no Neeld option, because you're not allowed to criticise the coach.

That's BS.

It's funny how bad this team truly is.

One of two things has happened:

1. Bailey picked good players, but the club just can't develop them

2. Bailey just picked a [censored] team that is even shitter in a tough system

There's no Neeld option, because you're not allowed to criticise the coach.

Although you seem to have ignored the fact that the the best teams all have quality players recruited in the first half of the 2000s, ie, pre-Bailey, whereas Melbourne only has a few who are of questionable quality, some because of their age.

The mess we are in is because of our recruiting and development pre-Prendergast reading their names out.

Our recruiting in the last 5 years has been nothing to write home about but it has been adequate. The real deficit is in development and sport science as I repeat ad nauseum...

Sorry i do not think our recruiting of late has been adequate.

We have buggered at least 3 picks in the last & that doesn't include Trengove who is getting slower!!

Sorry i do not think our recruiting of late has been adequate.

We have buggered at least 3 picks in the last & that doesn't include Trengove who is getting slower!!

Adequate isn't good - it's par.

We have drafted some very good talents and we have wasted some picks.

And Trengove will be fine.

Adequate isn't good - it's par.

We have drafted some very good talents and we have wasted some picks.

And Trengove will be fine.

Par is a disgrace considering the opportunities we wasted.

Eg We trade Mclean for pick 11. Great, fantastic. But we then recruit a baby who is also slow....we needed big bodies to compete

Then there was pick 12....F$&@!!!!

Par is a disgrace considering the opportunities we wasted.

Eg We trade Mclean for pick 11. Great, fantastic. But we then recruit a baby who is also slow....we needed big bodies to compete

Then there was pick 12....F$&@!!!!

I think you're better off in Australia than overseas. Health wise.

I think you're better off in Australia than overseas. Health wise.

No. Being away gives far better perspective. However you look at it the last 5 years on field has been a fail. We had so many chances, and we blew them.

No more sugar coating...

No. Being away gives far better perspective.

Obviously.....

One of two things has happened:

1. Bailey picked good players, but the club just can't develop them

2. Bailey just picked a [censored] team that is even shitter in a tough system

Bailey didn't pick the players.

As far as development ? How many players that have left Melbourne have come back to haunt us ? How many that we failed to develop have suddenly greatly improved in a different environment ? We always knew that Thompson would be good and Jolly was always a better player in my mind than Jamar when he was here. Let's look at some other more recent delistings/trades.

Miller is in and out at Richmond and the supporters don't want him selected. Addam Maric is the definition of a fringe player at Richmond and is the sub more often than not.

Paul Johnson didn't make it at Hawthorn. Kyle Cheney gets the odd game, but he's still not best 22 and no more than depth.

Simon Buckley is getting a game, but if you watch Collingwood you'd still see the poor decision making. He's one of the first that Collingwood supporters want out and is border-line best 22.

Chris Johnson got delisted by Carlton because he was soft and turned it over under pressure. McLean has been a disappointment, is hanging on for dear life and isn't best 22 when everyone is available.

Would Bate, Dunn, Petterd, or Morton be developed into really good players at other clubs ? I think you're a little delusional if you answer yes. The evidence supports the case that they wouldn't.

Has our development been great ? Probably not, although I have more confidence in the new group and they've got to be given more than one season to show results.

Has our recruiting been great ? Hmm. I say a resounding no, but there is a decent canvas to work with.

Conclusion ? There are many parroting the line that we can't develop players, but I point the bone far more at our recruiting. It's popular to blame development, as supporters don't want to think they have a list full of duds, but a bit of nasal gazing suggests our drafting has been poor. That said, there's still plenty of young talent on the list.

Bailey didn't pick the players.

As far as development ? How many players that have left Melbourne have come back to haunt us ? How many that we failed to develop have suddenly greatly improved in a different environment ? We always knew that Thompson would be good and Jolly was always a better player in my mind than Jamar when he was here. Let's look at some other more recent delistings/trades.

Miller is in and out at Richmond and the supporters don't want him selected. Addam Maric is the definition of a fringe player at Richmond and is the sub more often than not.

Paul Johnson didn't make it at Hawthorn. Kyle Cheney gets the odd game, but he's still not best 22 and no more than depth.

Simon Buckley is getting a game, but if you watch Collingwood you'd still see the poor decision making. He's one of the first that Collingwood supporters want out and is border-line best 22.

Chris Johnson got delisted by Carlton because he was soft and turned it over under pressure. McLean has been a disappointment, is hanging on for dear life and isn't best 22 when everyone is available.

Would Bate, Dunn, Petterd, or Morton be developed into really good players at other clubs ? I think you're a little delusional if you answer yes. The evidence supports the case that they wouldn't.

Has our development been great ? Probably not, although I have more confidence in the new group and they've got to be given more than one season to show results.

Has our recruiting been great ? Hmm. I say a resounding no, but there is a decent canvas to work with.

Ben Hur you had me until the last nine words.

Has our recruiting been great ? Hmm. I say a resounding no

How can you say that and in the next sentance say " but there is a decent canvas to work with"

Either it has been good and there is a decent canvas to work with

Or it has been poor

Not sure you can have it both ways

Par is a disgrace considering the opportunities we wasted.

Eg We trade Mclean for pick 11. Great, fantastic. But we then recruit a baby who is also slow....we needed big bodies to compete

Then there was pick 12....F$&@!!!!

Lol, you're spiralling out of control. This is how I picture you this time next year;

"You stuffed up pick 3 & 4, you botched the Scully pick and worst of all, Cook over Darling?... no more!!"

Geez mate, you missed the point again... Strike two

Did I say they were all great players? What I said was they were all drafted about where they were expected to be, so don't blame the drafting. Some might have gone on to become great, some might not have, but they simply haven't been developed properly so we don't really know.

Compare our list to Richmond's. Granted Richmond aren't setting the world on fire, but who here wouldn't like to be playing the way they are.

And a hint- our forward line and backline are better than theirs.

It's the midfield, stupid. It's always been the midfield, stupid..

One point I think we're all missing is that we can be fairly certain that Neeld will not compromise on his game plan - for better or for worse.

And therefore he will not compromise on the type of player he wants for this game plan. We don't know the game plan in detail, but it's always been pretty obvious the type of player he wants.

So those on the line are likely to be those who won't be able to play the type of game he is looking for - no matter how good they are. So he's likely to prefer Tapscott to Gysberts, Magner to Morton - not because Tapscott & Magner are necessarily better players, but that they're more likely to be able to play the way he wants.

To push this further, might he be prepared to trade out some very promising players who he doesn't think will suit the style of game he wants, even at the risk of them ripping it up for another club, in order to trade in some established players from other clubs who WILL suit his game plan? An example might be that in order to get someone like Cloke, he might be prepared to trade someone like Watts.

Perhaps we should stop thinking about how "good" such and such a player is, and look at our list from the point of view of whether they will suit Neeld's style of game, no matter how "good" they are. In fact, the "good" or "promising" players who are unlikely to ever be tough contested-ball players are the ones to bring in some high value from other clubs, and as such might be the ones he has most in mind.

What I'm getting at is that Neeld is looking at the list not in terms of how "good" each player is, but in terms of how well they will fit the style of game he wants.

I must say that this is just speculation, and personally I don't agree with this approach at all. But is it the way that things are headed?

Compare our list to Richmond's. Granted Richmond aren't setting the world on fire, but who here wouldn't like to be playing the way they are.

And a hint- our forward line and backline are better than theirs.

It's the midfield, stupid. It's always been the midfield, stupid..

Guarantee you Cotchin and Martin would not be anywhere near as good had they come through our system at the time.

Guarantee you Cotchin and Martin would not be anywhere near as good had they come through our system at the time.

Patent rubbish. In fact for his talent I reckon Cotchin has been a little slow in reaching the levels he has. Since when have Richmond been the bench mark in developing players ? How was Vickery looking in his 4th year before he got injured ?