I just want to know why we keep drafting timid stick insects and not competitive animals.

I think I read somewhere that TAC coaches have agreed not to 'tag' potential AFL draftees? Allow them to run and dominate, to make sure they're drafted?

Anyone else hear this?

We certainly didn't pick well.....Gawn throwing up on Scully's shoes....I rofled.

Not tag them ? They have been tagging them ????

Roos discussed in an interview this year the enormous gulf between TAC and AFL. He made a point of the biggest deficiency of juniors coming through being the absence of the defensive side of their games.

I just want to know why we keep drafting timid stick insects and not competitive animals.

A very good question TT

I just want to know why we keep drafting timid stick insects and not competitive animals.

I wanna know why we keep throwing this up.

Sylvia, McLean, Tapscott - how did they work out for us ?

In most cases we have drafted what are regarded as the best players available at our pick ( Cook and Strauss being exceptions and two that were taken well before their "ranking").

I refuse to believe that we have got that many wrong. I firmly believe that we have taken recruits who have had some talent into a club with a lingering poor culture, no leadership, questionable administation, iffy coaches and no pursuit of excellence.

I can buy the best plants from the best nursery - if i stick them into my poor soil at home and don't water them or give them nutrients - they whither and die - nothing more certain.

To those who say "these recruits have gone elsewhere and havent done any good either" - Sometimes when you crap in your pants, you think you can salvage them by giving them to another really good laundry to clean up and use - but alas - some stains will never come out

( Wow I'm on fire with my analogies today !)

Seriously....

Pray tell - where exactly do you think the hype comes from ? People just making it up ? The hype, is in reality is the expectation that comes from watchers of TAC/Junior footballer seeing these players and assessing or grading them. The idea that Scully at the time was far and away rated as the best junior in the land wasn't just pulled out of someones sphincter. These players were playing great football against their own age not open competition against men ( although some had played seniors at SANF/WAFL level - still a far cry from AFL)

The reality is that some great juniors do not go on to be great seniors. Throw into the mix that we have no idea how to develop players.

It is easy to sit back and be a genius after these players have played a season or two. But I won't sit here calmly and listen to revisionists bang on about us taking Scully/Trengove instead of Martin. Is it a mistake now ? Absolutely. At the time - absolutely not.

So "at the time" is 100% on the money. "At the time" these players were highly rated juniors.

So yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing

I think there is a level of hype though 'nut', happens in every business. The recruiters get caught up in it like the fans and media and the expectation grows, a little of 'the Emperors new clothes'. It's easy to see in hindsight of course but we only hope that we have people who can look through the smoke, mirrors and hype and make a good decision.

I think there is a level of hype though 'nut', happens in every business. The recruiters get caught up in it like the fans and media and the expectation grows, a little of 'the Emperors new clothes'. It's easy to see in hindsight of course but we only hope that we have people who can look through the smoke, mirrors and hype and make a good decision.

Of course they get caught up - that is why it is a turkey shoot.

But people wringing their hands over Martin - the "hype" over Scully started 2 years before the draft and didn't diminish - he played exception junior football. Trengove was a later bloomer but played a great last year and did will at senior level in the SANFL level.

So do you believe like others, that at the time, we should have taken Martin over either of those two ?

Seriously....

Pray tell - where exactly do you think the hype comes from ? People just making it up ? The hype, is in reality is the expectation that comes from watchers of TAC/Junior footballer seeing these players and assessing or grading them. The idea that Scully at the time was far and away rated as the best junior in the land wasn't just pulled out of someones sphincter. These players were playing great football against their own age not open competition against men ( although some had played seniors at SANF/WAFL level - still a far cry from AFL)

The reality is that some great juniors do not go on to be great seniors. Throw into the mix that we have no idea how to develop players.

It is easy to sit back and be a genius after these players have played a season or two. But I won't sit here calmly and listen to revisionists bang on about us taking Scully/Trengove instead of Martin. Is it a mistake now ? Absolutely. At the time - absolutely not.

So "at the time" is 100% on the money. "At the time" these players were highly rated juniors.

So yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing

So our recruiters just follow the pack. This is what is wrong with the list. Hype leads to hype and delusion. You can bang on all you like NB about revisionism but unless the club really focuses on players they need rather than blindly following the media then Yes I I will sit back bemused at how wrong they could have been OK?

Of course they get caught up - that is why it is a turkey shoot.

But people wringing their hands over Martin - the "hype" over Scully started 2 years before the draft and didn't diminish - he played exception junior football. Trengove was a later bloomer but played a great last year and did will at senior level in the SANFL level.

So do you believe like others, that at the time, we should have taken Martin over either of those two ?

I'm not in the cut and thrust of recruiting 'nut', so I am influenced by what the influencers say. Less so now. I would be interested in who Rendall, Bucky or the Geelong crew would have selected. We will never know of course. As for Martin, I don't think the Tiges are out of the water there yet.

This is a little like Petracca at the moment, the potential greatest player to pull on a boot. I hope we don't get caught up in the hype, there may be better options. I'm not convinced yet that we have the best recruiting team on board, time will tell. I do get worried about a player, like Trengove who rockets up the list in their final year.

Melbourne's issue isn't who they draft, it's how they develop them.

Yup, thats 100% the problem

Yup, thats 100% the problem

90% recruiting, 10% development.

So our recruiters just follow the pack. This is what is wrong with the list. Hype leads to hype and delusion. You can bang on all you like NB about revisionism but unless the club really focuses on players they need rather than blindly following the media then Yes I I will sit back bemused at how wrong they could have been OK?

Again ....

Follow the pack - our recruiters see what everyone else is seeing - who is the most talented junior footballers.

So we took Scully Trengove Watts and Toumpas who were highly rated. - poor recruiting ? shouldnt follow the crowd, hype and delusion ?

We took Cook, Strauss and Tapscott - well before the crowd and them placed - poor recruiting ?

You cant have it both ways - when we go with popular wisdom you think we get it wrong but when we went against popular wisdom we really got it wrong.

And you say we blindly follow the media - where do you think the media is getting their information - from recruiters. From what recruiters are seeing and telling them. Our recruiters and other recruiters.

Recruit players we need - we needed big body mids a while ago - we picked up Sylvia and McLean, we need a key forward - we took Cook, we took watts, we again needed mids - scully, trengove, toumpas.

You can be bemused as you like - but a little thought into what a raffle TAC draftees can be and also how horrible this club has been at developing any players should probably enter your thinking.

For the record - what are your thoughts on the Petracca hype ?

90% recruiting, 10% development.

20% recruiting 80% development ( including crap culture, no demand of excellence, fitness regime that is years behind other clubs, no leadership, poor administration, no good role models/senior players to take pressure off and aid the juniors development)

Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle) once said - "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth. Chap. ...the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

I know - quoting fictional characters but...

We have had a series of recruiters not just one. These guys are also backed by a web of talent scouts.

Ask yourself this - were the players selected picked unseen or were they watched ? Were they regarded as talented footballers from what was seen ? How do players like Wright, McCartin and Petracca get to be ranked as the best 3 players in the competition ? Were these players not only regarded as top selections by us but by other recruiters.

So have thought about this - there are probably only 2 players who i can think off that fall outside the above - Cook, Gysberts and Strauss.

So if we have taken talented footballers into our club and to a man - they have all failed - is not the obvious staring us in the face ?

1/ Junior footballers do not always go onto to make it

2/ There is so much wrong with our club that we make it doubly difficult for junior players to succeed

I'm not in the cut and thrust of recruiting 'nut', so I am influenced by what the influencers say. Less so now. I would be interested in who Rendall, Bucky or the Geelong crew would have selected. We will never know of course. As for Martin, I don't think the Tiges are out of the water there yet.

This is a little like Petracca at the moment, the potential greatest player to pull on a boot. I hope we don't get caught up in the hype, there may be better options. I'm not convinced yet that we have the best recruiting team on board, time will tell. I do get worried about a player, like Trengove who rockets up the list in their final year.

So we are probably in agreement - all recruiters are reacting to is what they see - then they guess on potential and whether they will develop.

The one all recruiters got horribly wrong in my opinion is Scully - there was always a knock on his kicking but his biggest asset was his almost manic desire to succeed and go to any lengths to get to be the best. That hasnt quite worked for him yet.

Geelong have got a few wrong as well.

But I cannot over-emphasis taking a bit of talent and putting into a well run organisation that nurtures and develops the talent, has great leadership and surrounds the juniors with really good senior players.

The most accurate statement is "time will tell". Yup - because we will have hindsight and recruiters are really guessing on one major component - these kids play well at TAC - will they continue that form and development at AFL level. We have recruited tall, short, well built, skinny, inside and outside, well fancied and smokies - pretty much all have been washouts.

with few exceptions - its all about us not them.

20% recruiting 80% development ( including crap culture, no demand of excellence, fitness regime that is years behind other clubs, no leadership, poor administration, no good role models/senior players to take pressure off and aid the juniors development)

80% recruiting, we selected players for a game plan that was finished at AFL level, skinny unskilled kids. Look at the guys that have made it most are bigger body hard nuts. We just went after the wrong players

So we are probably in agreement - all recruiters are reacting to is what they see - then they guess on potential and whether they will develop.

The one all recruiters got horribly wrong in my opinion is Scully - there was always a knock on his kicking but his biggest asset was his almost manic desire to succeed and go to any lengths to get to be the best. That hasnt quite worked for him yet.

Geelong have got a few wrong as well.

But I cannot over-emphasis taking a bit of talent and putting into a well run organisation that nurtures and develops the talent, has great leadership and surrounds the juniors with really good senior players.

The most accurate statement is "time will tell". Yup - because we will have hindsight and recruiters are really guessing on one major component - these kids play well at TAC - will they continue that form and development at AFL level. We have recruited tall, short, well built, skinny, inside and outside, well fancied and smokies - pretty much all have been washouts.

with few exceptions - its all about us not them.

Yep, have to agree there. Scully really hasn't met expectations and not only was this on his junior form but I would like to know what GWS saw in him to give him the big offer.

I hope the recruiters we have in place have the courage of their convictions though; pick the kid they think will be best and not be concerned about where the draft pundits see him. I think we did this with the Tyson deal, I would be interested in what really happened with the Wines/Toumpas selection.

20% recruiting 80% development ( including crap culture, no demand of excellence, fitness regime that is years behind other clubs, no leadership, poor administration, no good role models/senior players to take pressure off and aid the juniors development)

this is it. & the fish rots headfirst

running a footy club is totally different, to running a BHP sort of enterprise. no wonder we have stuffed up for SO long

Barassi said a few years back, run it as a footy club.... I didn't hear anyone question what that actually meant? I can guess well enough tho, that it isn't as we've been run for 50 yrs gone by.

Oh No not another selection or development thread!

80% recruiting, we selected players for a game plan that was finished at AFL level, skinny unskilled kids. Look at the guys that have made it most are bigger body hard nuts. We just went after the wrong players

Nonsense - apart from Cook, Strauss Gysberts - we picked the best players available at our pick.

Some skinny ? Yes - explain McLean, explain Sylvia, explain Tapscott, Trengove wasn't skinny when he came. Most that come out of TAC are undeveloped - Wines is the exception not the norm. Most of these big bodies you speak of that made it didn't walk into the clubs with big developed bodies - they developed them at the clubs they went to. Ahh development - something we have never managed to do. Its not that our kids were skinny - it is that we have never managed to get weight on them.

Unskilled - where are you dragging this from ? Maric was meant to be a gun by foot ... Strauss was meant to be a gun by foot ... hmmmm. The only player with a knock on his foot skills was Scully

We went with Scully small and quick - Trengove more solid, Gysberts - taller option - meant to be a ball magnet, Tapscott - ball of muscle run through brick walls. To say we picked for a certain game plan ? four very different footballers who only had one thing in common - none of them have made it.

Name all the picks we have had - then line them all and see if there is a similarity between them all. The only real similarity is not in attributes but in the fact that none of them have really made it. So pick a common thread as to why this might have happened - It might be they all landed at our cesspool ?

Oh No not another selection or development thread!

I know I know - we have picked some poorly but haven't you asked yourself why we havent had one draft pick that got to elite status ?

Do you honestly therefore believe we get every single pick wrong.

And yet most here pull apart every part of the club from previous coaching to admin to training to culture - rightly so. And yet there is an expectation that our recruits are meant to thrive in that environment - beggars belief

Nonsense - apart from Cook, Strauss Gysberts - we picked the best players available at our pick.

Some skinny ? Yes - explain McLean, explain Sylvia, explain Tapscott, Trengove wasn't skinny when he came. Most that come out of TAC are undeveloped - Wines is the exception not the norm. Most of these big bodies you speak of that made it didn't walk into the clubs with big developed bodies - they developed them at the clubs they went to. Ahh development - something we have never managed to do. Its not that our kids were skinny - it is that we have never managed to get weight on them.

Unskilled - where are you dragging this from ? Maric was meant to be a gun by foot ... Strauss was meant to be a gun by foot ... hmmmm. The only player with a knock on his foot skills was Scully

We went with Scully small and quick - Trengove more solid, Gysberts - taller option - meant to be a ball magnet, Tapscott - ball of muscle run through brick walls. To say we picked for a certain game plan ? four very different footballers who only had one thing in common - none of them have made it.

Name all the picks we have had - then line them all and see if there is a similarity between them all. The only real similarity is not in attributes but in the fact that none of them have really made it. So pick a common thread as to why this might have happened - It might be they all landed at our cesspool ?

Have to agree with you totally here, I just can't come at the skinny kids argument mainly because it is just plain wrong.

Players who haven't been any better or were worse than they were at Melbourne under development of other clubs:

• Gysberts
• Scully
• Sylvia
• Morton
• Bennell
• Maric
• Moloney
• Petterd
• Cheney
• McLean
• Buckley
• Cook (VFL)

I just struggle to see the likes of Strauss, Blease, Watts, Trengove, Toumpas and Tapscott being any better under the development of other clubs.

Some of those players all teams would have taken if they had the chance, so there is bad luck but it doesn't change the fact that they would struggle in any side.

90% recruiting, 10% development.

Dissagree, we have had a lot of high picks and had Nathan Jones and James Frawley as the only two who have really come on

that leaves, Strauss, Blease, Tapscott, Scully, Trengove, Sylvia, Watts, Grimes, Toumpas, Salem, Cook, Morton

none of whom at this point have really come on, Salem and Toumpas probably need more time but i'm not sure that many players could be rated so highly and just be duds

I reckon it's about 30% recruiting 70% development, even if the player is a dud, if you develop them well then they can at least be serviceable

Dissagree, we have had a lot of high picks and had Nathan Jones and James Frawley as the only two who have really come on

that leaves, Strauss, Blease, Tapscott, Scully, Trengove, Sylvia, Watts, Grimes, Toumpas, Salem, Cook, Morton

none of whom at this point have really come on, Salem and Toumpas probably need more time but i'm not sure that many players could be rated so highly and just be duds

I reckon it's about 30% recruiting 70% development, even if the player is a dud, if you develop them well then they can at least be serviceable

Those players you listed would all be better at other clubs, despite the fact that just about every player to leave Melbourne in recent years has not improved under the development of their new clubs?

Those players you listed would all be better at other clubs, despite the fact that just about every player to leave Melbourne in recent years has not improved under the development of their new clubs?

The argument could be made that the damage was already done.