There is an interesting article posted on the Herald Sun website, It involves Tom scully being refered to as a 'bust'. I can't access this article, but for whoever can, please bring some happiness to this whole forum.

P.s. Jesse Hogan, Dom Barry and Chris Dawes for Tom Scully.... I guess we do make smart choices after all!

P.s.s. Maybe Kevin Sheedy has a soft spot for us demons after all!

Interesting how the article turns into a Dees bashing affair after 3 sentences.

The recruiters are scathing.What the hell sort of recruiters did we have! IDIOTS!

What does it say?

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/greater-western-sydney-tom-scully-struggles-to-make-his-mark/story-fndv8lf1-1226634958956

I guess he's lucky that no one in Western Sydney really cares. It would be worse if he were still with us.

Not a bad article. Recruiters are spot about our players not improving and that Nathan Jones is the only one and that he should have been captain. Good to see a honest article

"He is taking time to adapt and GWS probably needs a better performance out of him based on his salary."

Thanks Yeater. Always liked you

The guy is easily the highest paid player in the league relative to impact. 4 years in and he's showing no signs of being able to do any of the remarkable things you'd expect. He's just a plodder.

In the end he may well have done the right thing by taking the money and running. He certainly wouldn't get offered half that money now. His greed might be the only thing he has going for him.

The article doesn't just sully Scully. It goes on to give us a fair whack too.

The article doesn't just sully Scully. It goes on to give us a fair whack too.

Problem is that the truth hurts

The article doesn't just sully Scully. It goes on to give us a fair whack too.

possible rookie, down the track Jack?

It's a tough call to blame Melbourne for not developing him considering he was only at the club for two years and did fairly well in that time. I will agree that our record of developing talents into good players (not even stars) is abysmal.

I honestly reckon he would be doing better at Melbourne if he was still here. The pressure placed on him at such a young age with his price tag would be too much for a lot of people, let alone a bloke of 21.

P.s. Jesse Hogan, Dom Barry and Chris Dawes for Tom Scully.... I guess we do make smart choices after all!

And he freed up the cash for us to get Clark. Not that I see a whole lot in Barry, but that's still a good take in anyones book.

We need quality mids badly, nonetheless.

We are an easy target for the press to hit ATM

Interesting that Yeats said he was a flanker at under age level - so too were Trengove and Martin I believe.

Perhaps the expectation that all three would become 'pure' mids was erroneous from the get-go.

Scully's skills let him down and he's not gut-running like he did in his first year at the Dees, Trengove looks slow (perhaps due to two non-existent pre-seasons in a row) and Martin clearly lacks stamina, but is probably the best prepared if all three, no doubt helped that he's got Cotchin, Deledio and Grigg as midfield cohorts.

Perhaps all three are only ever going to amount to being good ordinary footballers rather than stars of the competition.

Interesting how the article turns into a Dees bashing affair after 3 sentences.

That's a surprise? That sentence could describe almost any article to hit the presses in the last 6 years.

The article doesn't just sully Scully. It goes on to give us a fair whack too.

Deservedly Jack...

We all know by Now our past player development has been woeful, & this is why Neeld is addressing the difficult job of culture &

values with the footy dept', & the playing list.

But even he can't do much about the bigger club. The off field, in the office,,, & in the grandstands...

We to, have all become a bit infiltrated with a preciousness & defensive mechanisms, where we write off people who try to hint at, & broach 'our skeletons', & we all write them off as 'Idiots', & Fools, & "they wouldn't know where to scratch themselves", sort of comments.

This is why we find ourselves in the situation of more than 4 decades of failures where we could have Won flags, throughout that Journey.

If everyone stops looking through the pain of a supporter, at what we're doing right now, & look at what we've done since last September, like a Doctor searching for a diagnosis, you may start to understand why the changes are taking place, & why we went out to get Craig, Misson, & Clark at Neelds request.

He is taking on the toughest challenge, not recruiting a list,,,, but to change the culture & the Value systems in this Once grand old club organisation...

Buy in, & be a part of the change we Nee'd, to get this bloody place back off the slipway & Sailing straight & fine again.

Those recruiters comment are a load of crap. Yes we have struggled with some of our player development but a lot of others have flourished, i.e. McDonald, Howe and now M. Jones and Evans are looking the goods. If you have a look at the top 10 from that year some of these so called 'good developers' have also struggled.

1. Tom Scully

2. Jack Trengove

3. Dustin Martin (inconsistent)

4. Anthony Morabito (very unlucky)

5. Ben Cunnington (hasn't done much)

6. Gary Rohan (unlucky but hand;t done much before that)

7. Bra Sheppard (part of West Coast 'amazing' development and has done NOTHING)

8. John Butcher (nothing)

9. Andrew Moore (does he still play?)

10. Jake Melksham (is a so-so player)

So it seems most from the top 10 are struggling. At the moment Martin would be on top but I would say Trengove isn't far behind considering he is also a co-captain.

This article is an insult to Kwame Brown. And yes, while I lament seeing Dustin Martin succeeding at Richmond, Judas and Trengove were the safe picks, so I'm fine with picking both of them. It's the drastic reaches that turn into busts (Cook, Gysberts) that hurt me the most.

If Trengove wasn't the slowest player in history (in every aspect) he would be very good. That top ten overall is fairly average, that's the problem with selecting 17 year old players.

The sooner the AFL increase the drafting age the better.

I'd go so far as to say the bulk of the article lays into us. As a general rule, if a Melbourne player isn't reaching the heights they were expected to, it's because they're at Melbourne, apparently.

If Trengove wasn't the slowest player in history (in every aspect) he would be very good. That top ten overall is fairly average, that's the problem with selecting 17 year old players.

The sooner the AFL increase the drafting age the better.

This quote still surprises me:

Recruiter 2: "If I was forced to take one of Scully or Trengove, I would have taken Trengove based on his performance for Sturt in the 2009 SANFL Preliminary final against Glenelg."

How can one single game have such an influence over a decision? I'm not an AFL recruiter but that seems almost negligent. Anyone can have a rare day out.

If melbourne was so bad at picking talent, then how bad must GWS be, and paying $6M to boot

GWS had a lot more opportunity to gauge T$'s ability than melbourne had

And don't forget they made their offer at the end of his first season, not his second, so he would be a bit tuned off with melbourne's development in his second year

This is not to defend melbourne's development record, but in T$'s case i don't think it is very relevant

I agree that they need to lift the age of recruits. It's difficult though as they will then have a gulf in the years between. They have to roll it in somehow so that teams at the bottom of those seasons don't get too hurt. They would most likely have to have an age cut off that is gradually lifted, i.e. if players were born in 1994 they would have to be born before June or somrthing.

This quote still surprises me:

Recruiter 2: "If I was forced to take one of Scully or Trengove, I would have taken Trengove based on his performance for Sturt in the 2009 SANFL Preliminary final against Glenelg."

How can one single game have such an influence over a decision? I'm not an AFL recruiter but that seems almost negligent. Anyone can have a rare day out.

If memory serves me correct mfc said at the time that they couldn't separate them re no1/no2

It was line ball and in the end more of a flip the coin type of decision

So whether scully or trengove was no1 is really rather a moot point and not really worth making an issue over