Healy on Melbourne's list and recruitment

[Rogue 585]

I'm not a big fan of Healy, but I think he is preaching to the choir with his article in the Herald Sun today.

Healy outlines the recruiting woes which have led to our KPP problems now - one of the main reasons I thought we were overrated coming into this season. He also mentions our lack of ruck depth, a problem that made our inaction on this front quite puzzling.

Healy points to our lack of pace as another key issue, but says our youngsters give us reason for hope (although the KPP problem must be addressed). Bate is a "potential A-grader", but Healy rightly points out that Sylvia has much to prove despite being highly regarded (none more so than on this forum!). Dunn gets a mention, and hopefully we see him return next week.

Wish I could get a gig writing for the a major daily...but only on Melbourne

[occo 2]

It was a fantastic artical and i think he has examined it more than what has actually been said.

I think we are in serious trouble as a team, like Healy says and ideally we need 3 years at bottom 2 to get both priority picks and higher draft picks. This would allow us to search for 2 defenders, 4 quality midfielders, a forward pocket, full forward, ruckman and crumming forward.

The year of 2001 was shocking in the fact that Luke Molan, Aaron Rogers, Miller and Bizzell (trading pick 17). To dive into this further Molan was 1 pick higher than James Bartel at 8. Nick dal santo at 13 and James Kelly at 17. Aaron rogers was drafted instead of the likes of Ashley Hanson, David Rodan, Sam Mitchell and Leigh Montagna. If we kept draft pick 17 and not gotten Biz we could have had James Kelly.

Troy Simmonds was also lost with Ellis picked in his replacement with Vardy also coming to melb.

In 2002 we recruited Smith who was surely saught after to try and assist the ruck. Jarad rivers was a quality recruit but ferguson wasnt. With the pick 15 for smith we could have had Will Minson at 20. On melbs benifit is the fact that paul johnson was picked at 24 for eagles and hasnt shown what minson has of yet. Ferguson at 66 was ok i guess due to being such a high pick. The sad thing is Shane Woewodin was lost for pick 14...being Nick smith. Daniel Bell was a good pick at 13 in a somewhat ordinary year for all clubs. Cameron Hunter at 54 was a mistake looking back where Ryan Crowley was picked at 55...a better pick.

In 2003, Colin Sylvia was picked at 3, with Farren Ray being 4 and Andrew Walker at 2. In my opinion he has shown more than Ray, and had injuries not affected him he would be perhaps even better than Walker in my opinion. McLean was obvious quality at 5 and perhaps the best of the top 5 players. Chris Johnson at 36 under father/son has shown little. Looking back, a better option would have been Eddi Sansberry at 40 or Ricky Dyson at 44. We passed pick 52 when we could have recruited Daniel Jackson at 53 or Sam Fisher at pick 55. We recieved Holland for pick 20...a bad mistake where we could have had Sam Butler or Matthew Moody if we had kept that pick.

In 2004, we got Phil Read off the preseason. We lost Scott Thompson for Moloney in the 3 club deal with Richmond and Geelong. We lost Darran Jolly for pick 15 which we used for Dunn. We also got Jamie Baker for pick 45 which was given to the eagles. If we had kept that pick we could have had Justin Sherman, Henry Slattary, Jayden Attard or Nathen Ablett (not taken under fath son). Bate at 13 looks good. Newton at 43 is yet to play an afl game and we could have gotten any of Ablett, Attard, Slattary or Sherman.

2005 was our best year with Jones picked at 12, Buckley at 53 but at 56 was Joel Patfull and Bartram at 60 was a gem. Heath Neville at 68 was added to try and get ruck assistance..even tho at a high pick he was an unlikely chance of afl. But in that year we added Byron using picks 28 + 44. At pick 28 we could have gotten Matt Riggio...not well known but a young kid. At pick 44 we could have gotten Kasey Green...who is still young.

In 2006, frawley was added at pick 12, a hopefull FB or CHF in the future. But as healy says "James Frawley looks like he could be the answer, but given the demons have made so many errors in trying to solve this problem, he's carrying the weight on the recruiting department on his shoulders" The Age Friday June 29, page 114. Hes a likely guy to be a great player but what occures if injuries ruin his career and we have no depth in that area of ground. Pettard at 30 was a terrific recruit. Its too early to judge Garland too and Isack Weetra.

I understand that there will be people on here who look at this saying, yes all teams make blunders. James Hird was taken at 87 or something and yet his career would warrent a number 1 pick. Kepler Bradley at pick 6 would annoy essendon when they look back and see Tenace was picked at 7...a better player. Even Mclean has shown he could be better than Cooney, Walker, sylvia, Ray and Bulldogs and Carlton could look back and see the mistake. But i think there have been too many blunders. Good picks have been lost with the likes of Molan, Smith, and the loss of Sam Fisher Sam Butler Matthew Moody, Slattary, Sherman, Riggigo etc through drafting players from other clubs.

There will always be players like Molan who show so much and lose it through injuries, Hunter not up to afl standard and a height issue and Smith who was a let down. But to make matters worse, the loss of young players through recruiting Holland, Bizzell and Pickett has hindered our chances. We needed to have looked back then (easier said now yes) that we may have issues with an aging list.

I debated whether doing a team lineup or 22 over players that we could have had. But i chose not to. Its too hard to see what players like Moody, Butler etc etc would be like at a different club. Kasie Green is still young at kangas and somewhat struggeling but who knows what he would be like at melbourne....which makes the point that if i had made that list, it just wouldnt seem real.

Melbourne have a serious issue tho, thats well known. I think bottoming out and having a cleanout would be ideal...a short term pain for long term gain and again i wont predict we would be like Hawks or Geelong if we did this because you just dont know. But depth is another serious issue and with many players retiring and getting nothing in return for them i think its time to play some younger kids like Warnock, chris Johnson, garland etc etc and give them a 5 or so rounds to try and show something. This theory of putting a player in and withdrawing him after a bad game isnt going to work for melb. Paul johnson was given this oportunity with a number of games and is starting to show some small glimpses of light. In the ideal world, you would have melbourne bottom out for 3 years, get some KPP and build a very strong spine up the ground with FB to FF and then address the midfielders and wings. Collingwood and other clubs can afford this, but the sad reality is we cant. I think its good to have a team bottom out for a few years and rebuild. It adds both quality players and a chance to play thoes players and rebuild instead of using older players. But i fear melb will never, in its future be able to have even 2 years bottoming out without finantial issues. 2 years isnt enough, i feel we need 3 years towards the bottom to also allow these young kids to get game time and build depth, another good reason.

But i guess its a demela that we all must face as a club. I dont know what the finantial situation is, a thought would be for someone generious to donate...and i focus on the word donate money for melb to be able to afford 3 years at the bottom. This would allow us to have 10 solid years up the top and pay off that loan. Dunno tho, the issue would be if it couldnt be paid off i guess.

Anyway we will see what we get at the end of the year. There are some players that must be traded, we dont have to bottom out to perhaps get 1 really good player for the loss of 2.

hmm

[occo 2]

Im more convinced that FB is also an issue

[Face Your Demons 175]

Bizzell has done the club proud. Any talk to the other is just Bulls--t

[45HG 1,539]

just curious, did you think all of this at the time these selections were being made?

[Nicho 1]

It was a fantastic artical and i think he has examined it more than what has actually been said.

In 2003, Colin Sylvia was picked at 3, with Farren Ray being 4 and Andrew Walker at 2. In my opinion he has shown more than Ray, and had injuries not affected him he would be perhaps even better than Walker in my opinion. McLean was obvious quality at 5 and perhaps the best of the top 5 players. Chris Johnson at 36 under father/son has shown little. Looking back, a better option would have been Eddi Sansberry at 40 or Ricky Dyson at 44. We passed pick 52 when we could have recruited Daniel Jackson at 53 or Sam Fisher at pick 55. We recieved Holland for pick 20...a bad mistake where we could have had Sam Butler or Matthew Moody if we had kept that pick.

Good post mate but i have to enquire about one thought....

For starters Col sylvia will be a gun under a toughrt coach and if he could ever shrug of OP...

But Eddie Sansbury is one of the worse players in the comp and i would not draft him using pick 20,000.....

He is [censored]...

We already have Brown, Holland, Godfey in team, Thank god we didnt pick up enough dud...

[occo 2]

Good post mate but i have to enquire about one thought....

For starters Col sylvia will be a gun under a toughrt coach and if he could ever shrug of OP...

But Eddie Sansbury is one of the worse players in the comp and i would not draft him using pick 20,000.....

He is [censored]...

We already have Brown, Holland, Godfey in team, Thank god we didnt pick up enough dud...

I guess this is where i disagree with you. Eddi i believe is better than Carroll. He is quick and very good at spoiling...perhaps not contested marks however. And i think i said that col was a good choice in my post. I do think he will be ok but to clear it up he was the right choice if that wasnt clear

[occo 2]

just curious, did you think all of this at the time these selections were being made?

as i said, looking back now is easy yes...but i did make it clear in my post that the likes of Holland and Biz could have been used to get younger players who would be about 23 yoa now. Did i think about it as selections were made? no. I like many melb supporters thought we had a good list but it appears we might have overestimated them. Take what you will from what i have said...call it garbage if you wish and i understand that its easy to say this now (i have said that at least 5 times now) but i think we have had some really bad years in recruiting and aquiring players

[dazzledavey36 52,703]

I guess this is where i disagree with you. Eddi i believe is better than Carroll. He is quick and very good at spoiling...perhaps not contested marks however. And i think i said that col was a good choice in my post. I do think he will be ok but to clear it up he was the right choice if that wasnt clear

mate wtf are you on??! seriously do u know anything about footy? eddie sansbury is about 180cm who plays for of a forward flanker then in the backline! u need to think a bit more mate about how u post coz atm u aren't really the most well liked person on this site

[occo 2]

mate wtf are you on??! seriously do u know anything about footy? eddie sansbury is about 180cm who plays for of a forward flanker then in the backline! u need to think a bit more mate about how u post coz atm u aren't really the most well liked person on this site

Mate i couldnt give a flying toss if im liked or not. Fact is is i believe Eddie is a good player and yes i know a hell of a lot about footy. i go to a hell of a lot of games, hawks and st kilda games a lot. I watch the 4 games on free to air too. Eddie is not 180 cm hes 182 and bloody good in the air. He is a good player.

[dazzledavey36 52,703]

and your saying he is better then nathan carroll? u better bloody have a good excuse!

[warren dean 193]

Bottom line here is that Healy is absolutely right! We have not recruited one genuine KPP of note that has had a decent impact for any length of time through the draft. Rivers has been great as an undersized key defender who often zones off or plays as third man up. Our best key defender in the Daniher era has probably been Anthony Ingerson, who was recruited from Adelaide in the Balme/Griffiths days. Shanahan was good for a year(1998), but was a veteran when we got him from St Kilda. Blokes like Al Nicholson, Matt Collins, the Biz, Chris Lamb, etc have all had deficiencies (some more than others). The truth of the matter is that the best key defender at Melbourne in the last 15 years is currently our full-forward. Until we build a goal to goal line we can't be anything more than competitive at best. I think it is an absolute credit to ND that we have been in finals 6 of the past 9 years given the structural limitations of the squad.

[Dalrot 85]

Comparing Eddie Sansbury to Nathan Carroll

Hahahahahahhahahahahahahaha

[Alan Smithee 0]

Bottom line here is that Healy is absolutely right! We have not recruited one genuine KPP of note that has had a decent impact for any length of time through the draft.

The truth of the matter is that the best key defender at Melbourne in the last 15 years is currently our full-forward. Until we build a goal to goal line we can't be anything more than competitive at best. I think it is an absolute credit to ND that we have been in finals 6 of the past 9 years given the structural limitations of the squad.

A credit it was WD. Ultimately, in his time, Neale & the FD failed to build that 'premiership winning' spine. It has come at a cost.

[warren dean 193]

A credit it was WD. Ultimately, in his time, Neale & the FD failed to build that 'premiership winning' spine. It has come at a cost.

It certainly has but I wonder who else will be paying the price from the Footy Department? I doubt very much that there is a coach at this level that has had a lot to do with recruiting for at least the last 10 years. No AFL coach would have the time to worry about recruiting-their job is to coach. Full time recruiting staff and networks have been part of footy departments since the late '80s. Weaknesses in lists are identified together, but it is the job of the recruiters to fill the holes adequately. CAC and his team receive a lot of plaudits on this site, and I believe they have done a reasonable job overall. It can't be denied however that the recruitment of KPP's has been a disaster. Hence my argument that ND did a great job with what he had. In fairness to the recruiters, the only early picks we had since 1998 have been either taken off us (1999), or occurred in a year when there wasn't much in the way of likely KPP's (2003). The only other year we didn't make the finals (2001), three other clubs received priority picks. Whoever coaches next year will have very little say on draft day - that work will have well and truly been done!

[Alan Smithee 0]

I would be lying if I could ever recall or even accuse the club of being aggressive in their pursuit of playing talent, although the recuritment landscape has changed somewhat now. However, our track record in the commitment to make the hard call with list management & 'pressure' other clubs in our pursuit of on field excellence has either been sporadic, misguided or non-existent.

Gardner spoke about ticking boxes and how well the club has done off the field to get itself back on course. The one box he didn't tick and if anything, distanced himself from in the media, had been the football Dept. This year is over. As you say WD, any decision he makes now will not impact our drafting activity at seasons end.

I'm interested to see what unfolds, what decisions he makes and subsequently what evolves, if anything, of the footy dept. As he has demonstrated over the past 2 weeks, the buck stops with him.

[beelzebub 23,191]

For what its worth i dint think the bugger was too far wrong... fancy that for a turncoat.

Sometimes we can be too close to the club !!

[Pepe Dee Pew 0]

Interesting article. Much rests on how our young talls develop.

Frawley - looks like he will be ok. Plenty of pace

Dunn - Looks tough at Sandy, agile and quick for size, clever. May be KPP/mid or flank

Newton - 1st game was good. Could be our next good FF.

Bate - Already looks like he will be Grade. Can play anywhere.

Rivers - Still developing and is automatic selection when fit.

Miller - Jury out, maybe new coach will see a new Miller. Is he injured??

PJ - Jury out - Very mobile. Just keep fingers crossed.

Also we have Carroll - been around for a while and does the job. Has a number of AFL seasons left.

IMO apart from a query on our ruck stocks we have plenty of developing talls. The bonus is that the really young ones have pace and agility (including Newton).

We have plenty of developing small/mediums but no superstars (yet).

Overall i think our list going forward is strong but what we need is:

Absolute quick gun mid - Backline usually gets flogged without a winning midfield.

Developing ruckman - Neaves yet to be tried out. Do we turn to this years draft??

History says you need an absolute gun midfield and good ruckman to win a flag. That is why this years draft is so important.

With the time it takes to develop players we are still a few years away from a flag. For example Brock and Col have been around for a few years but are still a long way off reaching their best.

[Rogue 585]

Eddie is not 180 cm hes 182 and bloody good in the air. He is a good player.

Haha - you showed him!

For what its worth i dint think the bugger was too far wrong... fancy that for a turncoat.

Sometimes we can be too close to the club !!

Many people have been saying the same sort of thing for a while.

I think we are in serious trouble as a team, like Healy says and ideally we need 3 years at bottom 2 to get both priority picks and higher draft picks. This would allow us to search for 2 defenders, 4 quality midfielders, a forward pocket, full forward, ruckman and crumming forward.

I don't agree with your dire assertions, but I was one who in '06 wrote that we wouldn't be in line for the flag in the next few years for the same sorts of reasons Healy has stated.

[ickey_11 145]

One thing that was missing in the whole article is when Melbourne finished low and had early picks they picked midfielders (Johnstone, Sylvia and McLean) because in those years the gun tall were not available. Melbournes future would look totally different if a Riewoldt, Koschitzke, Buddy Franklin or Roughead was available in those years.

Also comparisons to Geelong is also misleading as they are well serviced with talls from father-sons in recent years (Blake, N Ablett, and Hawkins), this has made their recruiting a lot easier.

It is the lists of Sydney, Adelaide and WCE that Melbourne needs to model itself on, in the next couple of years. They both had short stays at the bottom, had some quality players at the club (like Melbourne) to start with but managed to build powerful teams with smart recruiting.

Oh and the Irish experiment has produced Kenneally since Stynes, how can any team bank on that. I know there are some promising players in the system, but they aren't promising like Tom Hawkins.

[steve_f 40]

One thing that was missing in the whole article is when Melbourne finished low and had early picks they picked midfielders (Johnstone, Sylvia and McLean) because in those years the gun tall were not available. Melbournes future would look totally different if a Riewoldt, Koschitzke, Buddy Franklin or Roughead was available in those years.

Very true. We now seem to be picking the best without trying to guess 2 -3 years ahead.

I disagree with his assertion that you need to recruit a flock of young ruckmen. Sydney got Jolly. Varous got Simmonds. We appear to have a find in PJ.

Mounting the soapbox, I do not see the pont in retaining Ferguson and Warnock after we had a look at them. But they junk-picks.

[DoubleDees 1]

I understand that there will be people on here who look at this saying, yes all teams make blunders. James Hird was taken at 87 or something and yet his career would warrent a number 1 pick. Kepler Bradley at pick 6 would annoy essendon when they look back and see Tenace was picked at 7...a better player. Even Mclean has shown he could be better than Cooney, Walker, sylvia, Ray and Bulldogs and Carlton could look back and see the mistake. But i think there have been too many blunders. Good picks have been lost with the likes of Molan, Smith, and the loss of Sam Fisher Sam Butler Matthew Moody, Slattary, Sherman, Riggigo etc through drafting players from other clubs.

hmm

WOW

If only the club could use hindsight to draft all its players. We would have the best list in the competition........

[Demon Disciple 11,607]

WOW

If only the club could use hindsight to draft all its players. We would have the best list in the competition........

Yes, retrospection's a wonderful thing