Actually, several of our selections over the years were surprises, players taken earlier than expected like Gysberts & Cook......

BP: “We were lucky to pick him up when we did. We thought he’d be gone by [pick x]."

15 other recruiters: “Really?!?"

All the best Ricky Bobby. Thought he had retired last year.

Actually, several of our selections over the years were surprises, players taken earlier than expected like Gysberts & Cook......

Read the posts champ.

Ask them what? No ones doubting development is important what people are doubting is that we ruined the careers of above listed players and there's a difference. Salem and Brayshaw are still developing but they came to the club with footy smarts, a desire to compete and they know how to kick the bloody footy. The above listed may of had one or two of those attributes but they didn't have all three, hence they are no longer at our club and failed at other clubs with a better development history then ours. You don't just forget how to kick the footy. Salem and Brayshaw have the three main attributes coaches are looking for. They have been able to impact games from an early age.

As stated we simply stuffed up the drafting.

Right so you're comparing the development rates of completely different players with completely different coaches and club situations... Ugh....

Trengove didn't have the desire to compete? Strauss didn't know how to kick? Watts doesn't have footy smarts?

You're oversimplifying a situation to suit your needs in the argument. I'll say it again, none of our picks bar Cook and possibly Gysberts were unexpected. Other clubs would have taken them where we did, that has been made perfectly clear if you go back and look at the expert opinion of the time. You're being a Captain Hindsight here, and everyone is a draft expert 5 years down the track.

Gysberts and Blease both got multiple Rising Star nominations, you think they didn't impact games early on? They had the talent, and that shone early, but it didn't go anywhere because we didn't DEVELOP them properly. By the time they got to new clubs 4-5 years down the track they didn't have the habits of successful footballers because they were not well coached.

Those players had Bailey and Neeld.

This crop have Roos and McCartney.

Think it's a coincidence?

Stuie, is Petterd another one of the MFC players that you used to know a bit socially? You are going out of your way to defend him, like you used to with Beamer, whom I recall you somewhat knew.

Stuie, is Petterd another one of the MFC players that you used to know a bit socially? You are going out of your way to defend him, like you used to with Beamer, whom I recall you somewhat knew.

Nah this thread has gone off on a tangent about drafting v development, nothing to do with Ricky.

Ricky epitomized the 2010-2011 era.
He really looked like he was going to be something. A bit like the entire team.
He never looked the same after the upheaval and spluttered along.
Watching that round 2 game against Collingwood makes me a little melancholy to be honest. Had the club held their nerve or at least made a more sensible decision than the one they did (i.e. handing the club over lock, stock and barrel to Hollywood Boulevarde and their associated hangers on), we may be in a better place than we are today.

He wasn't alone in the goal square, though (2:54):

Good effort I thought, Turned his body to get away from the opponent and had to over-stretch for the ball. He didn't "drop it" as much as he just couldn't quite reach it as it fell.

Good to see the footage again. I was there and my memory held it very differently. He so almost held that. days gone by, similar refrain.

Right so you're comparing the development rates of completely different players with completely different coaches and club situations... Ugh....

Trengove didn't have the desire to compete? Strauss didn't know how to kick? Watts doesn't have footy smarts?

You're oversimplifying a situation to suit your needs in the argument. I'll say it again, none of our picks bar Cook and possibly Gysberts were unexpected. Other clubs would have taken them where we did, that has been made perfectly clear if you go back and look at the expert opinion of the time. You're being a Captain Hindsight here, and everyone is a draft expert 5 years down the track.

Gysberts and Blease both got multiple Rising Star nominations, you think they didn't impact games early on? They had the talent, and that shone early, but it didn't go anywhere because we didn't DEVELOP them properly. By the time they got to new clubs 4-5 years down the track they didn't have the habits of successful footballers because they were not well coached.

Those players had Bailey and Neeld.

This crop have Roos and McCartney.

Think it's a coincidence?

Yes I am comparing them....

And the reason I'm doing that is because it's valid.

This crop has Roos and McCarthey. We are talking about the kids but just for a second let's look at our senior players. Most haven't responded under any of Bailey/Neeld/Roos. Why's that? Because some weren't that good to begin with, some are just plain dumb and just don't care enough and take playing AFL for granted.

Let's look at the players you've thrown up

Trengove - Natural competitor, of course he is but is his kicking elite? How are his footy smarts?

Strauss - Great kick of the footy but was he a competitive beast? Footy smarts?

Watts - Elite disposal and footy smarts. Watts is not a natural competitor, if he was he'd be in the top 10 players in the comp.

I notice that you deliberately highlighted the one area they excelled at.

Another example

Nathan Jones - A competitive beast....yes, Elite disposal....no, Footy smarts.....no. That's if we're being honest. Up until George Stone arrived Jones was forever getting caught with the ball and taking bad options. By saying no to footy smarts, yes they have a base understanding of the game but it's not an area they excel in. Twice a year we someone starts a "how many A graders do we have" thread. Jones is always listed as an A grader. Yes we love Jones at Melbourne but he's nowhere near Ablett, Pendles, Fyfe, Danger etc. Not even close.

Toumpas drafted 2012 Salem drafted 2013

Drafted with - Drafted with -

Elite disposal - yes. Elite disposal - yes

Footy smarts - average Footy smarts - yes

Natural competitor- no Natural competitor yes

Neeld - 1 season Neeld - 0 seasons

Roos - 2 seasons Roos - 2 seasons

McCartney - 1 season McCartney - 1 season

One is currently struggling at VFL and one playing seniors. Don't even think about using Toumpas having hip surgery as an excuse, that was in the past. So based on your theory, we've set Toumpas back 5 years because of one year under Neeld. For all of Neelds faults he wasn't stupid. Pendles, Swan and Beams who are mids just like Toump, were a massive wrap for Neeld as midfield coach. Whilst he may not of had the makings of a senior coach he knew how a midfield should operate and set up, he knows a little about disposing of the footy.

Do I think it's a coincidence that Toumpas is still struggling while Salem continues to grow....not really.

We just got it wrong at the draft.

Edited September 3, 201510 yr by Al's Demons

Ricky really can't keep us focused can he?

Let's give Toump a year to get it right. Has shown flashes.

With the likes of Maloney, Silvia, Bleese and now Pettard retiring, some punters on here are fast running out of players to fcuk up the spelling of their surname.

Jokes aside, Petterd appeared content with making the senior team. Was inconsistent, and didn't appear to work hard enough when his opportunity presented itself.

I moved on from him a year before he left us. Bit like Howe at the start of this year.

With the likes of Maloney, Silvia, Bleese and now Pettard retiring, some punters on here are fast running out of players to fcuk up the spelling of their surname.

Jokes aside, Petterd appeared content with making the senior team. Was inconsistent, and didn't appear to work hard enough when his opportunity presented itself.

I moved on from him a year before he left us. Bit like Howe at the start of this year.

I think we'll be OK. We've still got Lamumba, VandenBurg, Trengrove and Dunne

You don't their first 2-3 years are their most important for development? Really? Wanna ask Roos and McCartney about that?

Maybe we should?

This argument that they are 'ruined' by us when they left to go to other teams is a ridiculous notion.

They are not furniture.

Vanders spent his 19-21 years being fat and coddled out of a lack of commitment by an underfunded NEAFL team.

He wasn't 'ruined' when he rocked up at the MFC.

Or did we ruin these blokes emotionally? In their Brains?

We drafted poorly, we haven't developed well but development is the difference between turning a B-grader into a B+, not whether or not a player 'makes it' or not.

I'm with CB - 90% drafting, 10% development.

Maybe we should?

This argument that they are 'ruined' by us when they left to go to other teams is a ridiculous notion.

They are not furniture.

Vanders spent his 19-21 years being fat and coddled out of a lack of commitment by an underfunded NEAFL team.

He wasn't 'ruined' when he rocked up at the MFC.

Or did we ruin these blokes emotionally? In their Brains?

We drafted poorly, we haven't developed well but development is the difference between turning a B-grader into a B+, not whether or not a player 'makes it' or not.

I'm with CB - 90% drafting, 10% development.

Didn't realize Vanders played under Bailey and Neeld...

Again, every player (bar Cook and arguably Gysberts) were taken where EVERY OTHER recruiter was going to take them. Fact.

My point is, drafting is not an exact science, you pick players with the information you have at the time (which is when they're 17). You can say it was poor drafting maybe for a couple, but that doesn't make us worse than any other team who would have taken them with the same pick. The fact that none of them came on PROVES it's development not drafting.

Out of all the "safe" predictable picks (which was nearly all of them) barely any came good. Fact.

We are known as the worst development team in the comp. Fact.

We've deliberately bolstered our development coaching department. Fact.

Not every player drafted is going to make it. Fact.

How about we deal in facts, rather than your "I think it's 90% this and 10% that" that has 0% actual factual basis?

Stuie in all this meandering essay you miss the most vital point.

A young player either has the ATTITUDE to succeed or not

just like in a classroom at school

The MFC drafted the wrong type of kid for a number of years hence my absolute disdain for the previous leader of this club who interfered with processes regularly.

Stuie in all this meandering essay you miss the most vital point.

A young player either has the ATTITUDE to succeed or not

just like in a classroom at school

The MFC drafted the wrong type of kid for a number of years hence my absolute disdain for the previous leader of this club who interfered with processes regularly.

Ok, last time I'm going to say this because clearly there's some selective reading going on here.

Bar Cook and possibly Gysberts, ALL the players we drafted were taken where they were expected to be in the draft order.

Wish he'd completed that mark in the goal square against Collingwood some years ago that would have won the game.

Ok, last time I'm going to say this because clearly there's some selective reading going on here.

Bar Cook and possibly Gysberts, ALL the players we drafted were taken where they were expected to be in the draft order.

The only selective reading is yours.

You are wrong.

How's Scully going?

Ok, last time I'm going to say this because clearly there's some selective reading going on here.

Bar Cook and possibly Gysberts, ALL the players we drafted were taken where they were expected to be in the draft order.

I don't care what the media scribes said. What matters is that for about 5 seasons we recruited small framed kids who did not have the right attitude.

Stop worrying about what the journalist's have written.

Didn't realize Vanders played under Bailey and Neeld...

Again, every player (bar Cook and arguably Gysberts) were taken where EVERY OTHER recruiter was going to take them. Fact.

My point is, drafting is not an exact science, you pick players with the information you have at the time (which is when they're 17). You can say it was poor drafting maybe for a couple, but that doesn't make us worse than any other team who would have taken them with the same pick. The fact that none of them came on PROVES it's development not drafting.

My point is poor development from when a talented kid is 19 to 21 is not the impediment you intimate it is.

They have gone to other, better environments and done nothing - that PROVES it is poor drafting. Unless we 'rooned them for all time!'

You telling me the hypothetical that 'every other club rated these players highly' holds less water than me showing you a bloke who hadn't the exposure to development that these boys did, however terrible it was, and he still 'came on' at a third-tier club in a third-tier league.

We did such a holistically poor job at drafting that you think it must have been development...

What do people think 'good development' looks like?

Having proper examples to base your game around? Having good leaders to guide you? Having the luxury of refining your game in the reserves to learn structures and to refine skills? Access to sports science professionals to build your physique and allow your body to function in the AFL at its peak (or beyond it)?

Do you think it is all of those and more?

What if you don't have the necessary talent, ability, and/or application?

Then development is moot.

My point is poor development from when a talented kid is 19 to 21 is not the impediment you intimate it is.

They have gone to other, better environments and done nothing - that PROVES it is poor drafting. Unless we 'rooned them for all time!'

You telling me the hypothetical that 'every other club rated these players highly' holds less water than me showing you a bloke who hadn't the exposure to development that these boys did, however terrible it was, and he still 'came on' at a third-tier club in a third-tier league.

We did such a holistically poor job at drafting that you think it must have been development...

The converse, however, is that with so many draft choices it could be argued that it would be impossible to stuff them all up and therefore the only reason for failure is their subsequent poor development.

Anyway, it's a moot point and it's been done to death. In another thread I've commented that Paul Roos' gameday coaching doesn't inspire me but his ability to get the list management, recruitment and player development right is where I see his lasting legacy.

The converse, however, is that with so many draft choices it could be argued that it would be impossible to stuff them all up and therefore the only reason for failure is their subsequent poor development.

No, the reason we made so many draft choices is because we were continually looking for the wrong type of player.

Got any hair left Stuie???

Ha ha.

Ps, I understand what you are saying.