I think it should be 'No, no and no'.

The Melbourne Football Club has a democratically elected Board who make the decisions. Therefore, if anyone is at fault it is us, the members, who elect the Board members.

We're fed the little information about certain ones who'll run for the board.... most of us no nothing about these people, except for the few members who have actually met the candidates. As I said, Most Melbourne members would not know the candidates from rice puddings.

we only get someones recommendation over a speel in a membership letter .

the members will then vote, virtually blindly, or give a proxy, or abstain from voting at all.

not good enough, & is a big reason of our perennial failings.

Speaking for myself, I've been a member for about 15 years and I don't recall ever taking enough interest in Board machinations to vote when the opportunity is offered to me. That's my failing and I've only got myself to blame.

Does anyone know what proportion of the membership eligible to vote actually does so? And a tougher question - do we know how this proportion compares with other clubs?

its not the voters. its the barriers in the way of the supporters would be members, & the registered members who do Not have a chance to personally meet & get to know these high flyers up on level 2 of the NorthernStand-Mcc.

Us, the voters largely vote in ignorance, & in hope.

This has got to stop in future, after the AFL has helped us; or we will end up back in the same Beluga Caviar pickle.

We need to be able to meet the candidates in an informal way, over many occasions, to form opinions about these candidates, to determine If We think they are who we want.

I think that part of the development issue came down to how training was being run and what they were actually doing.
When Neeld came to the club, he was shocked by the levels of fitness. Fair call. However, it seemed that in concert with Dave Misson that they then proceeded to get the team to work on that first and everything else second. I think Riv mentioned when he had his first interview as a Geelong player on SEN that they boys would get flogged and then they would break out the footys for skills sessions. Not only were the skill sessions error riddled but the group was pizzed off cos they were that bored and annoyed with the way things were going.
Being as respectful as I can but it also may have come back to the Bailey era as well when blokes seemed to be a little too casual about training. We always heard Dermott rail about how Watts and co. used to much about in the gym and horrify the Melbourne Storm boys with their lack of professionalism.

Therefore, maybe it's a combination of things and there is no magic bullet to solve the problem

So Fan, do you have the answer to your question ?

So Fan, do you have the answer to your question ?

Paul Roos and a team that knows what the hell they are doing.

Hopefully by this time in 2016 we will see the positive results.

Paul Roos and a team that knows what the hell they are doing.

Hopefully by this time in 2016 we will see the positive results.

the key is we have Roos & action Jackson running a healthy submarine.

the AFL are in charge atmo.

after this period ends the Real danger is that we will go back to the 'same old', 'same old'... pardon OD.

So Fan, do you have the answer to your question ?

Yes and no.

It seems to me that 3 things have been identified. Firstly and broadly "culture/leadership". Secondly skills development/game plan understanding/playing a role. Thirdly drafting.

My view is that it's the second more so than the others. I don't think drafting has anything to do with "development" because development is getting the most out of what you've got and has nothing to do with the drafting process.

But it's raised an issue and got those that are interested thinking about what it really is.

Given that I think it's the skills devleopment/game plan sort of thing I'm still confused as to why ours seems to have been so poor. I think part of it was the appalling list structure we had for many years post Daniher which required us to play young players far too early and in "bunches". And perhaps the people we had who were responsible for development were just no good.

Yes and no.

It seems to me that 3 things have been identified. Firstly and broadly "culture/leadership". Secondly skills development/game plan understanding/playing a role. Thirdly drafting.

My view is that it's the second more so than the others. I don't think drafting has anything to do with "development" because development is getting the most out of what you've got and has nothing to do with the drafting process.

But it's raised an issue and got those that are interested thinking about what it really is.

Given that I think it's the skills devleopment/game plan sort of thing I'm still confused as to why ours seems to have been so poor. I think part of it was the appalling list structure we had for many years post Daniher which required us to play young players far too early and in "bunches". And perhaps the people we had who were responsible for development were just no good.

I think there is a direct link between drafting and development. It is just that it is rarely used - I'd think anywhere.

You recruit (hire/employ etc) based on a few issues: what you need, what you can get and the goodness of fit between the individual + job + workplace (which includes culture). Development flows directly on from recruitment (ideally speaking). The recruitment process should highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the applicant. which allows the club to then tailor development FROM DAY ONE across all critical areas of performance. Consider that you can assess how psych traits are linked to critical competencies (e.g., training, preparation, performain under pressure, leading etc). That is, you can measure which traits actually predict key stable behavioural patterns. This is done across industries, levels of complexity/cognitive demand, cultures, languages etc. It has been done effectively for decades.

So, every recruit could have a simple profile highlighting +/- before they even come through the door. That provides the basis for all specific development work year 1. That then gets reassessed every 12-18 months (i'm guessing at the timeframe) thereafter. Now, psych testing is one method - recruiters have several sources of data and different measures available to them - this is just the one i'm most familiar with. Development becomes the degree to which players demonstrate competencies across key domains of performance.

The monumental effort and amount of data collected in the process of recruiting AFL players should allow competent clubs (i.e., clubs competent at this process) to have a clear development plan for every player from day one.

I think there is a direct link between drafting and development. It is just that it is rarely used - I'd think anywhere.

You recruit (hire/employ etc) based on a few issues: what you need, what you can get and the goodness of fit between the individual + job + workplace (which includes culture). Development flows directly on from recruitment (ideally speaking). The recruitment process should highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the applicant. which allows the club to then tailor development FROM DAY ONE across all critical areas of performance. Consider that you can assess how psych traits are linked to critical competencies (e.g., training, preparation, performain under pressure, leading etc). That is, you can measure which traits actually predict key stable behavioural patterns. This is done across industries, levels of complexity/cognitive demand, cultures, languages etc. It has been done effectively for decades.

So, every recruit could have a simple profile highlighting +/- before they even come through the door. That provides the basis for all specific development work year 1. That then gets reassessed every 12-18 months (i'm guessing at the timeframe) thereafter. Now, psych testing is one method - recruiters have several sources of data and different measures available to them - this is just the one i'm most familiar with. Development becomes the degree to which players demonstrate competencies across key domains of performance.

The monumental effort and amount of data collected in the process of recruiting AFL players should allow competent clubs (i.e., clubs competent at this process) to have a clear development plan for every player from day one.

OK so in layman's terms I think your saying drafting should measure "coachability" and if a player can't be coached then it's a drafting error.

But you could draft the most coachable player in the world and have such poor processes that the player never develops. Hence I'd argue that development has nothing to do with drafting.

Having said that I may have misunderstood your point!!

I am firmly in the camp that our recent woes are almost solely due to bad drafting.

Development can be broken down into three components, two of which are individual based and one of which is team based.

Firstly, there is individual physical development. That is, making our players stronger, faster, fitter and more skilful. This largely comes down to training (running, weights and skills) and diet. IMO there are negligible differences between the top and bottom AFL clubs in terms of physical development. This view reflects the number of assistant and senior coaches continually migrating from successful clubs and that the science of exercise is not all that complicated (injections aside) or sophisticated. It also reflects the inability of most players to ‘change their spots’ when they change clubs.

Second is the individual mental component. This involves teaching players where to run and position themselves and decision making (most importantly with ball in hand but also otherwise). These aspects can be taught to some extent but are largely instinctive. The mental side of things also includes training players to be at peak aggression while maintaining discipline. This is complex and coaches will use different techniques for different players. (i.e. for some players the coach will use the carrot and for some they will use the stick.)

The third component is team development. This involves teaching the team to play together to its strengths and to negate the strengths of the opposition. I actually believed Dean Bailey was quite good at this aspect of development and we looked really good on a handful of occasions. He was let down by a lack of cattle. Mark Neeld was terrible at this aspect because he wanted to implement an outdated philosophy.

OK so in layman's terms I think your saying drafting should measure "coachability" and if a player can't be coached then it's a drafting error.

But you could draft the most coachable player in the world and have such poor processes that the player never develops. Hence I'd argue that development has nothing to do with drafting.

Having said that I may have misunderstood your point!!

No!

I really must get better at communicating, damnit!

What I am saying is:

1. You could specify key areas of proficiency (e.g., skills, response to authority, leadership, preparation, adherence to rules etc);

2. Then you establish how you actually measure these things;

3. Then you figure out how you predict their performance i.e., which tests predict what behaviour in this environment);

4. Then you screen every draftee;

5. Then, once you pick one, you know exactly what needs to be targetted.

So, you might pick a bloke whose skills are excellent but whose confidence is low - coaching targets that;

You might pick a bloke whose confidence and aggression is excellent, but whose kicking needs work - you target that;

You might pick a highly skilled player but one who has never needed to follow a coach's instructions - so you target that.

You might pick a bloke who is an innate leader, but as a player is a bit of a utility - you target general game sense and "winning" his position, while you let his leadership just evolve as his proficiency improves and he gets runs on the board.

What I am saying is that you pick blokes based on what is prioritised and then address the gaps - whatever they might be - and THAT is development. The advantage to such a system is that the whole coaching and recruiting team all agree of what makes up a good foorballer, all call it the same thing, all the players are measured against one set of standard and it is a fair, balanced and specific set of criteria normed on the AFL environment.

I hope that makes more sense! Otherwise I'm going to start to worry.

Yes and no.

It seems to me that 3 things have been identified. Firstly and broadly "culture/leadership". Secondly skills development/game plan understanding/playing a role. Thirdly drafting.

My view is that it's the second more so than the others. I don't think drafting has anything to do with "development" because development is getting the most out of what you've got and has nothing to do with the drafting process.

But it's raised an issue and got those that are interested thinking about what it really is.

Given that I think it's the skills devleopment/game plan sort of thing I'm still confused as to why ours seems to have been so poor. I think part of it was the appalling list structure we had for many years post Daniher which required us to play young players far too early and in "bunches". And perhaps the people we had who were responsible for development were just no good.

Yet you don't think my suggestion that we've had far more than our share of injuries is worthy of comment,or even consideration.

I think it has played a part in the disappointing rate of improvement in our young recruits.

You need A-grade players at a club for the development of younger players to be most effective. Coaching cannot do it alone. Imagine being a young mid at Collingwood training etc with Pendlebury every day, at Geelong with Selwood or Gold Coast with Ablett. No disrespect to Chunk, but what do our young players have to watch and learn from in comparison?

I am firmly in the camp that our recent woes are almost solely due to bad drafting.

Development can be broken down into three components, two of which are individual based and one of which is team based.

Firstly, there is individual physical development. That is, making our players stronger, faster, fitter and more skilful. This largely comes down to training (running, weights and skills) and diet. IMO there are negligible differences between the top and bottom AFL clubs in terms of physical development. This view reflects the number of assistant and senior coaches continually migrating from successful clubs and that the science of exercise is not all that complicated (injections aside) or sophisticated. It also reflects the inability of most players to ‘change their spots’ when they change clubs.

Second is the individual mental component. This involves teaching players where to run and position themselves and decision making (most importantly with ball in hand but also otherwise). These aspects can be taught to some extent but are largely instinctive. The mental side of things also includes training players to be at peak aggression while maintaining discipline. This is complex and coaches will use different techniques for different players. (i.e. for some players the coach will use the carrot and for some they will use the stick.)

The third component is team development. This involves teaching the team to play together to its strengths and to negate the strengths of the opposition. I actually believed Dean Bailey was quite good at this aspect of development and we looked really good on a handful of occasions. He was let down by a lack of cattle. Mark Neeld was terrible at this aspect because he wanted to implement an outdated philosophy.

Sorry Tony, I disagree.

I think Melbourne players in the last 6-8 years have, overall, been physically smaller than other teams. And I'm not just talking about some obvious former players such as Morton and Gysberts. Just look at West Coast and Adelaide players up close and compare them with ours. In comparison, ours seem physically weaker. There are exceptions (Jamar and Tapscott come to mind), but players such as Watts, Strauss, Trengove and even Frawley are relatively skinnier than players of equivalent age and playing in similar positions in other teams.

You need A-grade players at a club for the development of younger players to be most effective. Coaching cannot do it alone. Imagine being a young mid at Collingwood training etc with Pendlebury every day, at Geelong with Selwood or Gold Coast with Ablett. No disrespect to Chunk, but what do our young players have to watch and learn from in comparison?

I reckon watching Chunk and Cross train is a pretty good example, the biggest thing is the mental side of it, losing has become almost acceptable, and close losses are treated like wins because we didn't get flogged, Roosy will be working on sorting all that out

Development also has to be sustained. You can have great processes in place, but you need to back yourself and have patience.

Richmond are only starting to show the fruits of Harwicke's long journey.

I am firmly in the camp that our recent woes are almost solely due to bad drafting.

I've had this view too, but recent conversations with 2 separate and very senior football people at 2 different clubs have led me to question this view.

Drafting is clearly important, but our development has been diabolical and the lack of growth in some of our young individuals is most definitely environment driven.

Yes, I'm told by one of the best recruiters in the game that he thinks we have a much better list than we have shown.

And that his record wouldn't look so good if his club had've had first bite at some of our draftees and their development followed the same trajectory there.

Sorry Tony, I disagree.

I think Melbourne players in the last 6-8 years have, overall, been physically smaller than other teams. And I'm not just talking about some obvious former players such as Morton and Gysberts. Just look at West Coast and Adelaide players up close and compare them with ours. In comparison, ours seem physically weaker. There are exceptions (Jamar and Tapscott come to mind), but players such as Watts, Strauss, Trengove and even Frawley are relatively skinnier than players of equivalent age and playing in similar positions in other teams.

We drafted weaklings.

Picking out players such as Watts, Strauss and Trengove and pointing to a lack of development on our part is all hypothetical. The question is 'would they be bigger and stronger if they were drafted by another club?' If you think yes, then ask why didn't Morton bulk up at West Coast? And then ask, what would Jack Darling look like if we picked him?

Moreover, Misson has been with the MFC for three preseasons. He is using the same techniques to bulk up Watts as he was using for Barry Hall.

I completely disagree on Frawley BTW.

Yes, I'm told by one of the best recruiters in the game that he thinks we have a much better list than we have shown.

And they are correct. The talent on our list was suppressed by the worst coach the game has seen.

We drafted weaklings.

Picking out players such as Watts, Strauss and Trengove and pointing to a lack of development on our part is all hypothetical. The question is 'would they be bigger and stronger if they were drafted by another club?' If you think yes, then ask why didn't Morton bulk up at West Coast? And then ask, what would Jack Darling look like if we picked him?

Moreover, Misson has been with the MFC for three preseasons. He is using the same techniques to bulk up Watts as he was using for Barry Hall.

I completely disagree on Frawley BTW.

And they are correct. The talent on our list was suppressed by the worst coach the game has seen.

Tony

You make some good points which makes me less convinced than I was about my own arguments. Nevertheless, you haven't yet got me over the line just yet. On balance, I still believe we have failed to physically develop players to a body shape that matches the needs of current football.

And I still believe Frawley is undersized for the job he's asked to do...which make his performances all the more meritorious.

To compare to another industry (not the easiest thing to do when talking about sport), consider a graduate in law, fresh out of law school, top of the class. Imagine the best law firm in Melbourne wanting him, amongst others, including Joe Bloggs in the outer suburbs. At which firm is our fresh graduate most likely to succeed? Surely not with Joe Bloggs and his below-industry-standard training.

Melbourne has been, for the last 8 years, the Joe Bloggs of the outer suburbs of the AFL.

We drafted weaklings.

Picking out players such as Watts, Strauss and Trengove and pointing to a lack of development on our part is all hypothetical. The question is 'would they be bigger and stronger if they were drafted by another club?' If you think yes, then ask why didn't Morton bulk up at West Coast? And then ask, what would Jack Darling look like if we picked him?

Moreover, Misson has been with the MFC for three preseasons. He is using the same techniques to bulk up Watts as he was using for Barry Hall.

I completely disagree on Frawley BTW.

And they are correct. The talent on our list was suppressed by the worst coach the game has seen.

I'm on the other side of the spectrum to you, as you may well know, and I don't buy a lot of your arguments.

For example, on Cale Morton, part of the reason why he didn't bulk up at West Coast, aside from the fact he had one pre-season with them (what were you expecting in one pre-season? No one, in any sport, anywhere, magically transforms in four months), is that football players grow more, and are prone to develop more muscle, in their youth. It's the phase from 18 to 24 that provides players with great scope to develop physically. Morton spent those years, crucial years, with Melbourne, and yes, I would say that, based on the fact that skinny players at other clubs tend to develop at a faster rate than skinny players at Melbourne, he would have ended up bigger at a more proficient club.

I'm not sure how you know what Misson is doing to Watts and how that compares to Barry Hall, but again, Watts' most important and formative years were before Misson. Nonetheless, I've seen development in Watts' body in the last two years.

Your last sentence is a lot more prescient - we've brought in a wealth of talent over the last 8 years, but we have failed at developing that raw junior-level talent into what it could, and should, have become (not just physically, but in all senses of the concept of development).