If CAC is rated so highly, then why are we predicted to be so bad again?

[timD 994]

I’m not taking pot-shots at anyone. I’m presenting an argument that the number of mediocre players that have been on our list is not the result of misguided recruiting but due to the fact that we took what was available at the time.

In all sports, results speak for themselves and we don’t have a good record in that regard. As they would readily admit, the MFC is responsible and CAC concedes it himself in Old55’s post above.

I appreciate the hard work that CAC has done. However, the platitudes that tend to be handed out, in my opinion, are unwarranted.

So, on your logic, if Fred earned 1000.00, and invested it and had, in the end $20,000, and Boris was given $20000 by daddy and made 5 bucks at the races, then Boris 's done better than Fred because he has more in the end?

[Guest fatty]

So by your logic, praise should not be given to a head recruiter if that team has not won a premiership during their tenure at the football club.

You can reach all the conclusions you like but to help you arrive at the correct one, I’ll clarify.

Success in football is due to a number of factors. Recruiting is possibly the most integral.

I’m willing to praise Craig Cameron for his hard work at the club. I’ll also thank him for his honesty. The club and its members were truly lucky to have such a genuine person who was willing to openly share his strategies and opinions.

People here think I’m taking unfair pot-shots at our players and “delighting” in our failure. Its not true. Robbo24 raised a question that, although a little naïve, is valid.

Melbourne don’t have a premiership and one of the leading indicators is the recruitment of players.

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the MFC is in the business of winning premierships. If its not, then we’re all wasting our time and I’m withdrawing my membership.

[mo64 5,853]

You can reach all the conclusions you like but to help you arrive at the correct one, I’ll clarify.

Success in football is due to a number of factors. Recruiting is possibly the most integral.

I’m willing to praise Craig Cameron for his hard work at the club. I’ll also thank him for his honesty. The club and its members were truly lucky to have such a genuine person who was willing to openly share his strategies and opinions.

People here think I’m taking unfair pot-shots at our players and “delighting” in our failure. Its not true. Robbo24 raised a question that, although a little naïve, is valid.

Melbourne don’t have a premiership and one of the leading indicators is the recruitment of players.

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the MFC is in the business of winning premierships. If its not, then we’re all wasting our time and I’m withdrawing my membership.

Based on your logic, Stephen Wells is a better recruiting manager even though he's been gifted Scarlett, G. Ablett, N. Ablett, Blake via father/son rule.

Fatty, give us something tangible. Give us 1 receruiting manager who you regard as successful, and provide their draft record.

[Nasher 33,607]

Melbourne don’t have a premiership and one of the leading indicators is the recruitment of players.

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the MFC is in the business of winning premierships. If its not, then we’re all wasting our time and I’m withdrawing my membership.

The biggest problem I have with your argument fatty is that you're not providing evidence as backup. Stuff like winning premierships (as you have suggested), and the vague opinions on others (as robbo24 suggested) are not valid KPIs for a recruiter.

I think the point most here are getting at is this, and I've probably been even less clear than the others :

A fair analysis of a recruiter is comparing him against other recruiters, taking in to consideration the resources available.

An unfair analysis is comparing him against nebulous ideas such as premierships and public opinion.

[Guest MFC4Life]

The biggest problem I have with your argument fatty is that you're not providing evidence as backup. Stuff like winning premierships (as you have suggested), and the vague opinions on others (as robbo24 suggested) are not valid KPIs for a recruiter.

I think the point most here are getting at is this, and I've probably been even less clear than the others :

A fair analysis of a recruiter is comparing him against other recruiters, taking in to consideration the resources available.

An unfair analysis is comparing him against nebulous ideas such as premierships and public opinion.

Agreed, clubs like Adelaide, Sydney and West Coast hav a vast network of recruitment staff all over the country, its almost like mafia gangs holding a territory.

At the AGM on last Monday Craig Cameron said it was him and seven other blokes to cover THE WHOLE OF AUSTRALIA.

[Guest fatty]

The biggest problem I have with your argument fatty is that you're not providing evidence as backup. Stuff like winning premierships (as you have suggested), and the vague opinions on others (as robbo24 suggested) are not valid KPIs for a recruiter.

I think the point most here are getting at is this, and I've probably been even less clear than the others :

A fair analysis of a recruiter is comparing him against other recruiters, taking in to consideration the resources available.

An unfair analysis is comparing him against nebulous ideas such as premierships and public opinion.

This argument has been done to death on this board and I’m not going to provide empirical evidence to support my argument that the majority of players pick themselves. The only statistic I will provide is that 50% of recruiting comes down to luck (which in itself is unprovable).

People praise Craig Cameron on his nous and canny ability to draft late picks. But have you ever stopped to consider that he was forced to due to draft penalties (the effects of which we are bearing now) and the fact that the earlier picks failed to deliver.

Nick Smith, Aaron Rogers, Chris Lamb, Luke Molan, Steve Armstrong are the reasons why players like Nathan Brown, Peter Walsh, Daniel Ward, Simon Godfrey got a gig.

Has everyone gone mad!!! The man himself admits it.

[Guest fatty]

So, on your logic, if Fred earned 1000.00, and invested it and had, in the end $20,000, and Boris was given $20000 by daddy and made 5 bucks at the races, then Boris 's done better than Fred because he has more in the end?

To extend your analogy, Daddy is the AFL and Boris is Collingwood.

NMFC is Fred and he's about to expire.

I'll take the $20,005.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the MFC is in the business of winning premierships. If its not, then we’re all wasting our time and I’m withdrawing my membership.

A fair analysis of a recruiter is comparing him against other recruiters, taking in to consideration the resources available.

An unfair analysis is comparing him against nebulous ideas such as premierships and public opinion.

That pretty much says it all Nash...

What this comes down to is a difference of opinion.

Fatty holds CAC more responsible than ANYONE for the fact that we've not won a premiership. Personally I'd hold Daniher more responsible, followed by the administration under the likes of Szondy and Gutnick.

To give you an analogy of what it sounds like you're saying... you blame CAC, as a part of the machine, for the woes of the Melbourne footy club during his tenure. To me, that's like saying David Neitz is responsible for our lack of premierships. He's been arguably the best player during the last ten years at the club, but surely logic dictates it was not HIS fault we didn't go all the way.

Do you see my point? CAC was a part of the regime, it doesn't mean he was responsible for our failure in ANY way.

I guess you're entitled to your opinion, and like you say the subject's been done to death.

[Guest fatty]

Fatty holds CAC more responsible than ANYONE for the fact that we've not won a premiership.

Where do you get these ideas from? I have in no way intimated that at all.

[Guest MFC4Life]

Where do you get these ideas from? I have in no way intimated that at all.

Who would you hold more responsible? The recruiter and his team or the coach and his development staff?

[Guest fatty]

Who would you hold more responsible? The recruiter and his team or the coach and his development staff?

Hi Lifer,

Its not really a fair question.

As I stated previously, there are so many factors that go into a successful operation. But its fairly obvious that the coaching staff has to have the cattle to work on to begin with.

To answer your question directly, my reply is “pineapple”.

I’m not sure why this is provoking so much discussion. Craig Cameron admits himself that, even considering factors beyond his control such as injuries, he shares the responsibility in the success or lack thereof, of the Melbourne Football Club.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Success in football is due to a number of factors. Recruiting is possibly the most integral.

Where do you get these ideas from? I have in no way intimated that at all.

See above...

Perhaps I jumped to conclusions in saying that you thought CAC was the most responsible... But as the head of the recruiting department, and as you stated above that "recruiting is the most integral," I don't see it as a long bow to draw to suggest this...

And since you ask... The reason I've discussed this with you is because you have been quite keen to mention CAC's shortcomings, without singing his praises once. To highlight his failures in name, and then to only go as far as to "thank him for his service" smacks of pessimism. You claim that you won't argue the point, but only after you stick the knife in. Like I said, we're all entitled to an opinion, and you make some good points.

For the record, it's only the decent thing to do (for CAC) to highlight and explain his failures and to claim responsibility. When I read that I saw it more as his way of explaining his reasoning rather than agreeing he'd failed. Notice he's modest enough not to sing his own praises when we mention Bartram, Bate, Bruce, Juice etc etc...

[timD 994]

To extend your analogy, Daddy is the AFL and Boris is Collingwood.

NMFC is Fred and he's about to expire.

I'll take the $20,005.

My point is that, head-to-head, fred has made heaps from what he started with, Boris is just a slapper, and yet you make a decision about fred and Boris's worth based on the outcome only...I think the metric is wrong.

[Guest fatty]

For the record, it's only the decent thing to do (for CAC) to highlight and explain his failures and to claim responsibility. When I read that I saw it more as his way of explaining his reasoning rather than agreeing he'd failed. Notice he's modest enough not to sing his own praises when we mention Bartram, Bate, Bruce, Juice etc etc...

Hi Dappa,

I was ready to give up on this argument as its becoming futile. But now you’ve intrigued me.

Are you saying that Craig Cameron doesn’t actually believe what he writes?

I can only form my opinions based on the information made available to me.

TimD - Boris is a slapper but he's still got $20,005.

[occo 2]

Occo you have put up a fine rebuttal to rather flaky argument.

However, while I am not great fan of Brad Miller, he was pick 55 in the 2001 draft and has played 90+ games. Admittedly some have not been as good as others. But hell, if you can get that many games out of a 4th round pick then its hard to call that an error. There are many at pick 5 that dont play more than 10 games.

You are right about Pickett. The strategy was right but the player did not deliver. Who set the strategy? ......The Coach.

The same could be said for Holland. We needed a player that could be a KPP with immediate impact. He has been serviceable. As far as a waste of a pick. Which KPP would we have gone for with pick 20 that would have done better? As far as I am concerned the 2003 draft has not delivered at the top, middle, bottom ends. I struggle to see how Holland could be a waste of a pick when no KPP taken after pick 20 in that year has delivered anything.

Yeah i know about miller. He gets so much cr** but Smith seems to get less abuse thrown at him. Miller has been ok at pick 55 i do agree and have always thought that way. And yes holland was a waste of a pick i believe but the 2003 draft was one of the worst. you only have to look at the players who were picked up. many of which are nowhere. Basically after pick 5 the draft went nowhere. Here is a link for thoes of you playing @ home: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_AFL_Draft

[occo 2]

An excellent post occo, but I will take you up on one point. CAC was not solely responsible for trading (Ellis, Holland and Pickett from your examples). These would have been done with his input but the decision would have been Danihers.

The failure of this discussion, as with previous discussions on CAC, is that it is absolute where it needs to be comparative. All recruiters will have their failures, that goes with the territory. What is important is to see that you have less failures than other clubs. In this regard I suspect CAC is top shelf.

Melbourne has failed to produce a "star" for a long time. But this is not solely CAC's fault. There are very few "stars" in the AFL, at least in the sense most of us mean. To get them you need the opportunity, something WJ has discussed. You then need the environment in which to develop them.

And finally I think there is a lot of merit in the argument that the recruiters job is easier (not easy) with early picks. I don't think it was hard to pick Morton with 4 or Grimes with 14. What is hard is to get value with later picks. CAC has been exceptional at this level which is why I think he is one of the best in the business and will be sorely missed by our club.

"Melbourne has failed to produce a "star" for a long time. But this is not solely CAC's fault". I know its not solely CAC's fault. There are the coaches wishes of who he wants recruited to concider too. Once the player is drafted there will always be issues with injuries, mentally able to cope with afl, get too big a head etc. All im saying is i personally dont rate CAC as one of the best. Sure he would be in my top 4 recruiters but i dont think he is as good as some people make him out to be

[Demonite 0]

All the selections CAC has made over the years we view with the benefit of hindsight, a luxury CAC is not afforded at the time of picking them. I challenge you fatty to look at our latest selections, either agree with CAC or name who you would have selected instead.

[Guest fatty]

All the selections CAC has made over the years we view with the benefit of hindsight, a luxury CAC is not afforded at the time of picking them. I challenge you fatty to look at our latest selections, either agree with CAC or name who you would have selected instead.

I nominate:

Morton

Grimes

Marric.

It doesn’t make us right. Time will tell.

My contention is, to date, we are yet to get it right.

Why is this so difficult to explain?

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Are you saying that Craig Cameron doesn’t actually believe what he writes?

I'm saying I take anything written on a fansite with a grain of salt. I didn't, at the time, feel like swimming through demonland to try and find his comments and re-read them... At the time all I remember was that there had been, as usual, a lot written on here about his mistakes with the likes of Smith, Rogers, Molan and a few others. I read his comments at the time, in full, and dismissed each one not as a man admitting his mistakes, but giving his reasons for selecting each player, and for the record, making a lot of sense in each case. As has been written by many other posters, he took guys like Molan because of a dire need for KP players... He learned his lesson, and now he no longer goes for type. He goes for the best available. Many believe he was pushed to take Molan and I think there's some truth to that. CAC took responsibility because he's not a whinging mug.

(we really are going over info that's been done to death here now) Now you may say I'm making excuses, but the Molan damage is done, and since then the important thing is he has LEARNED his lesson. From here on in, with whoever we get to replace him, they may take this information on board, but the point is they will not have the ten years of experience CAC had in the top job. As far as I can see recruiting is not about talent, or having incredible vision, or being born with an inherent skill as is the way with footballers. It's all about experience. We just lost 10 years of it. THAT'S why he's rated highly by everyone on here except you and a few others. He did his best work towards the end of his reign at Melbourne.

[Hannabal 4]

By his own admission CAC is getting better at his craft. Some here fawn over him, some make excuses for every selection he's got wrong, some think he's a dud, and others are somewhere in between. I think he's made plenty of mistakes, but I also think he's a better than average recruiter. I think his record stacks up with most. And I especially think that we'll look back at his last 5 years with fondness.

He hasn't recruited a 'star' in 11 years ( that we know of). Some here will blame player development, and lord knows I've been very critical of this aspect of our FD, but I also lay the blame squarely at his feet. Stars are stars, no matter the circumstances, training facilities, coaches, team, etc. And he's yet to unearth one in his tenure. I mark him down for that. And if that's harsh, so be it. If you want to be acknowledged as the best in your industry then you're judged on tough criteria. And at my club I want the best.

And how long was he 'list manager' ? This football club has held on to cr@p players for too long. They haven't turned the list over nearly enough. Players such as Lamb, Nicholson, Bizzell, Smith, Ward, Armstrong, Grgic, Godfrey were on the list for too long. Some far too long. Warnock, PJ, Holland, Miller, and Jamar shouldn't be on the list in 2008. Our dearth of ruck stocks have saved a couple. I think that this should be McDonald's last year, and I know many won't agree. But if you're not 'special' and are on the wrong side of 30 footy quickly catches up on you. Better to go a year too soon than a year too late, as has too often been the case. CAC must shoulder some of the blame for a lack of turnover of the list as list manager. But I acknowledge that he was one of many influencing this area of the club and I'm more critical of Daniher for the stagnation. Btw, some of us were calling for far greater list turnover 3-4 years ago. This isn't 20/20 hindsight.

I have many gripes over ND and his reign, but I also acknowledge that much went right.

And CAC ? He was good, but he wasn't a 'star'.

[Guest fatty]

I'm saying I take anything written on a fansite with a grain of salt.

Dappa – my question to you was rather facetious and didn’t really warrant a response. But thanks anyway.

Hannabal is a far more respected poster on this board than I ever will be and, although I disagree with him on McDonald and Warnock, his analysis is fair.

[Guest MFC4Life]

I can't remember what we are arguing about.

[mo64 5,853]

And how long was he 'list manager' ? This football club has held on to cr@p players for too long. They haven't turned the list over nearly enough. Players such as Lamb, Nicholson, Bizzell, Smith, Ward, Armstrong, Grgic, Godfrey were on the list for too long. Some far too long. Warnock, PJ, Holland, Miller, and Jamar shouldn't be on the list in 2008.

Hannabal, you're spot on here. I'm fairly sure that CAC took on the list management at the end of 2006, and I was extremely critical that we only had 3 selections in what was seen as a bumper draft. We drafted Frawley with our 1st selection, yet we retained Bizzell, Ferguson, Holland and promoted Warnock, who were all similar palyers struggling to get a game. I'm sure existing contracts may have had something to do with this, but the promotion of Warnock was staggering to me.

Prior to 2006, I'd say that ND in consultation with the Chris Fagan, would have been the list manager. And for mine, our list management has been a bigger problem than our recruiting.

[Slartibartfast 17,189]

And CAC ? He was good, but he wasn't a 'star'.

Premature, but on current indications I agree.

If this list goes on and wins a flag then CAC can probably lay claim to "star" status, particularly if Newton, Buckley, Garland, Bartram, Bruce, Davey, Miller, Petterd, Rivers, Whelan, McNamara and Cheney form a significant part of it. I've included Petterd as we rated him very highly when others didn't and Rivers because few if any other recruiters saw in him what Craig did. The others are genuinely late picks and this is where the wheat is sorted from the chaff.

The "star" issue is a hard one. Who do I consider genuine "stars" of the game? Hird, Buckley, Carey, McLeod, Pavlich, Judd, Reiwoldt, Brown, Voss, Harvey R, Cornes C, B Johnson and I suppose Goodes. I will have missed a few but of that lot there are not many CAC had a chance to pick. Cornes and Goodes are the only ones. I'm not sure it's fair to mark him down on that score but each to their own.

[Slartibartfast 17,189]

we retained Bizzell, Ferguson, Holland and promoted Warnock,

Holland, Ferguson and Bizzell were contracted. Nicholson was contracted and paid out. Holland and Ferguson got standard 2 year contracts and Bizzell was seeing out the last year of a three year contract which he shouldn't have got.