Scoop Junior

timD can you point me to the part of the article that says CC questioned the club and the board. From my reading of the article, I'm not sure it can be concluded 100% that the people Connolly allegedly refers to are still at the club. The quotes leave open the possibility that those people are no longer at the club. If they are actually former employees, then it cannot be said that Connolly has questioned the club and the board as you have alleged. And how has he displayed internal rifts to an outsider? He is defending himself when questioned as part of a private investigation. He has not gone public in airing his views. It was not even Connolly (and perhaps not even the club's lawyer) that went to the Age to leak this information.

Hahaha. Questioning the non-selection of a first year player who had a boy's body and was so far away from being ready to play league footy has got to be a joke. When I saw the headline I thought the article would be about how we selected a player who wasn't physically ready for league footy and that this was 'evidence' of tanking. But it is the other way around! If we played Watts more they'd probably argue that that was evidence of tanking! Why doesn't Pierek comment on this being one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Can't wait for the next exclusive!

Are these guys serious? Deliberate fumbling...wow. OK, so they are saying we were so utterly desperate to lose the game that the players deliberately fumbled near the end. Yet we were happy to take the 'risk' of hitting the front with three minutes to go, How brilliant a strategy, how crafty an execution. Hit the front with three minutes left and then allow the opposition an after the siren shot at goal. He may miss, but again we'll take the risk of that happening as part of our strategy to disguise the tank. Then what we'll do is have the players drop to the ground heartbroken that they have lost. They won't suspect a thing because we will ensure we put on a performance Tom Hanks will be proud of. I cannot believe it has reached this level of stupidity. 'Lumbering' ruckman Paul Johnson hey Pierek? Obviously he never saw him play, lumbering being a word you could not possibly associate with him. A more mobile, athletic and flexible tall I have hardly seen. A flanker trapped in a big man's body.

The only way a coaching move can possibly be used as evidence of tanking is if it is absolutely clear and unequivocal that that move was made for the sole purpose of trying to lose. An example of this would be pushing your entire team forward, leaving no one in the defensive half of the ground for a long period of time. All other moves like player positioning and match ups can be justified by other purposes and it will have enormous (and to be honest farcical) implications if the AFL were to decide that certain player moves are evidence of tanking. Moves like Bate to the midfield (a sign of things to come) and Miller in the ruck (one year later we saw the 2nd tall forward play the ruck relief role - Leigh Brown at the Pies) cannot be evidence of tanking. Some of the moves even worked and made us play better! I'm sick of the biased media continually bringing up player moves. Why aren't they all screaming that Hawthorn tanked when leaving Zac Dawson on Rocca all game? If Dunn cannot play on Riewoldt does that mean a young player can never be given a difficult role if there is another player more suited for the role? What a joke.

I love it how Caro points to Tom $cully leaving as the evidence that Melbourne did not focus on training and developing their players and couldn't retain their players. What about the fact that ALL the other young players re-signed with the club? So one player leaving for a contract 5 times his market value (in what many described as a once in a lifetime opportunity) suggests that a club was short-sighted and could not train, develop or retain their players? I suppose why would you let the facts get in the way of a nice story. And in any case on what basis is she qualified to give an opinion on a footy club's training and development regimes? I must have missed the chapter in the AFL history books when Caro played on a half back flank for the Tigers,

I still find it hard to believe that if you take a rubbish team which can hardly win a game and then engage in match fixing in an attempt to ensure a loss that it is possible to be ahead when the final siren sounds. How absolutely incompetent would you be if you as the match fixer can't ensure that your team is comfortably defeated? It defies logic. The point is there was no match fixing.

Comparing the decision of going for Jon Brown to Mitch Clark is laughable. McNamee wanted a 27 year old Brown in year one of our rebuild when our list was in an absolutely dire state. Even if we drafted well it would have taken 3-4 years to come good and by then Brown is a battered 30 year old. Neeld got a 24 year old Clark when the list already has some developing young talent on it. Clark is young enough to still be a key cog if the team can develop over the next few years. Not to mention Brown was a marquee player who had rejected Collingwood and was never going to leave his beloved Lions. Clark on the other hand wanted out. So yes, if Demonland consensus was that McNamee's move for Brown was silly, and that Neeld getting Clark was genius, then I would suggest that that's pretty close to the mark.

I'm happy to get rid of soft players, make no mistake about it. I would have rather gone for a midfielder in the Gysberts trade as I think that area is a more pressing concern. Again it's not that Pederson cannot apply. He can. I just think we have that key position area already covered.

Tim – it's true that Gysberts may only be able to play as an inside midfielder, but does it matter? If he is good enough at that inside role, then that's all he needs to be. My issue is not so much who we've traded, it is more what we've got in return. I believe we have got a return significantly below market value for Morton and Gysberts. Most players are tradeable for the right price, but I don't think we have got the right price in these deals. I was really happy with our work early in the trade period, but am disappointed by today's activity so far.

I just don't think Gysberts has been given enough time given his injuries and lack of body size and I also think he wasn't given as many opportunities as other players who showed far less in their time at Casey. I'm not saying he's the next big thing, but I have seen that he has certain talents that are worth persevering with and given the state of our midfield I think a young player with a knack of finding the footy is someone you would want to try to develop. To then trade him for another key forward – I don't quite understand it. We have Mitch Clark, Chris Dawes and Jesse Hogan. You cannot have more than three talls in your forward line. So I'm just thinking what role Pederson is going to play in a few years' time when Hogan should be ready to play. Pederson is not better than Mitch Clark, and if he keeps Dawes out of the team then we have overpaid on Dawes. So for me the short-sightedness of the decision is in getting a mature KPF who could play next year but at this point in time is questionable whether he would make our best 22 in a few years' time at the expense of a young developing midfielder who could add something to the midfield group for many years. But feel free to argue that trading a 21 year old for a 26 year old is not a decision for the short term.

So we trade a young midfielder with obvious talent and a knack of finding the footy for a tall player who couldn't get a game at North when we have just spent big money on a key forward from Collingwood, swapped pick 3 for the best 17-year-old key forward in the country and currently have one of the worst midfields in the competition. I think Pederson can play but this is an absolutely astonishing short-sighted piece of business.

For starters I have said I'm very happy with what we've done so far. I was talking about this particular deal in isolation. It's indisputable that you need an elite midfield to win a flag. At the moment we would have close to the worst midfield in the league. I can see that there's scope for development within but I also think that we have a golden opportunity this year to rebuild our midfield stocks by injecting some young potential A graders into the mix. Viney is one, pick 4 hopefully another and I would love to get another one with our other first round pick. Of course we need experience and leadership and I agree with that direction. But it shouldn't come at a price that we consider to be too high. By the way I noticed you listed Couch in your future midfield group. Cue John McEnroe.

I'm not happy if we have to give up pick 20. He is not worth 20 and we still need to build our midfield. I'm very happy with trading one of our top 20 picks for a tall (Hogan), but to trade another one for another KPF in Dawes is a bit too much for me. I was really hoping we'd pick up 3 gun midfielders with JV, pick 4 and 20. Hopefully we can get the deal done without losing 20.

If Wellingham is worth 17, then Dawes cannot be worth 20. Wellingham is clearly a superior player to Dawes. Nasher if Hogan becomes what we hope, then we will have him and Mitch Clark in the key forward posts, meaning Dawes won't get a game. I cannot justify trading pick 20 in a strong draft for a stop-gap measure who we would hope doesn't make our best side in two years' time. You cannot have enough quality mids and this is what we should target with 4 and 20. Previous drafts suggest that it is entirely possible to pick up A grade mids at pick 20.

Pick 20 for Dawes? Don't do this Dees - too high a price for a mediocre footballer. We need midfielders and I want us to use picks 4 and 20 on midfielders. We've done very well so far, let's not spoil it by trading away a valuable pick. I think we have enough talls on our list, but if they want some experience then I'd prefer a cheaper option.

Thanks for that Choko. I hope that we focus on midfielders with our early draft picks rather than key forwards. It's the old saying, but it's true, games are won and lost in the midfield. Our midfield was diabolical this year and we must unearth some stars. We've already stuffed up in the past by focusing too heavily on key position players with early picks.

Our two late-season wins that year against the Dogs and Carlton meant we didn't qualify for picks 1 and 2 in 2008 (thereby costing us Naitanui).

I can't believe how many are missing the main point here. The issue is not "if he is worth pick 3, I'm happy to take him with pick 3". Worth is irrelevant. The issue is "we have an OPPORTUNITY to maximise our drafting position by trying to ensure that we can take him in the second round." Even if JV was far and away the best player in the draft, as a club we would still need to be doing absolutely everything in our power to ensure that we could take him in the second round. It's not about worth, it's about capitalising on an opportunity. Given our recent track record with making the most of our opportunities, I'm not all that confident. But we can only hope. I know what Carlton would be doing.

Hells Gates my comments were not about disagreeing with you, it was disagreeing with the comment (allegedly) made by the club that they didn't want to take skinny kids any more. I only referred to your post because that was the post that contained the comments about the club's view. I understand you are only passing on information you have heard – thanks for posting and I look forward to reading more. Ben Hur – Agree, Cook was not best available, and the strange thing is his type wasn't even a 'need' for us. I was after a midfielder with pace with that pick, yet we drafted a guy with similar attributes to a player already on our list (Watts). I could have perhaps understood if they went after a big pack-crashing key forward as that was a need (and possibly still is), but to draft another lead-up type forward with our first round pick was a very odd selection.

Agree 100%. Hells Gates I cannot agree with that skinny kids comment. We need to draft the best players and if those players take 3 years to develop rather than be ready made then so be it. I'm not interested in seeing a team of mediocre players running around even if they can instantly produce better results next year. In fact I'd be disgusted if we ignore a kid who we think will be a better player in favour of a more ready-made but less talented player. The club would be mistaken if they think a more competitive side next year is the answer. The most important thing is for supporters to have hope and to see that the team is capable of developing into something special.

I said when we drafted Watts that I didn't care about his first three years. KPPs take a few years and skinny under-age ones take even longer. I wanted to see some glimpses but ultimately we all knew he was a long way away when first drafted. So I have long been a defender of Watts because he simply wasn't ready for senior footy when drafted. This was his fourth year and so I expected to see some genuine improvement. After a slow start he showed signs when moved to half back that he was prepared to get involved more and influence games. He was probably our best player for 3 or 4 games in a row. It's really the few weeks before he got injured and the last few games where he has been really disappointing, especially given the progress he had made around about Rounds 8-11. So I'm not going to write off a player after four years when I didn't expect anything from him in the first three. However, at the same time, some of his efforts this year were below expectation and as he moves into his fifth year he needs to make a big improvement in a few areas. In 2013 he will not be a baby any more. He will have had enough pre-seasons to at least be able to compete physically at AFL level. I'm not expecting him to be a superstar next year, as he still has development in him, but I will be bloody disappointed if he's still losing one-on-one contests against 18 year olds and failing to go when it's his turn.

Ben Hur - if Watts does not dramatically improve his intensity and appetite for the contest then I will definitely blame BP. We're not talking about a speculative late rookie pick, we're talking about the number 1 pick in the draft. Given the importance of this selection, the resources put in to ensuring you make the right decision must be enormous. The recruiting manager must know these players inside out. Not just their foot skills, marking ability, pace, athleticism, etc. but also their character, mental strength, intensity, hunger, toughness and competitiveness. I believe that from watching and studying junior footballers you can make pretty accurate calls on their hunger and toughness. BP should have known everything about Watts including these mental traits. If Watts is not a star then it is absolutely BP's fault. Watts showed some signs earlier in the year of an increased appetite to get involved in the game and greater intensity. But just before his injury and since coming back he has been horrendous. Some of his efforts tonight were absolutely pathetic. The one where he dropped the chest mark because a Docker was closing on him was like watching a 10 year old. He has time on his side but gee I'd hope he gets a serious talking to about where he's at and what will happen if he doesn't pull his finger out.

The author obviously isn't aware that the 2007 ND selections were made by Craig Cameron, not Barry Prendergast.

Ben Hur two attributes that you haven't listed for Gysberts which I think are real strenghts are an ability to accumulate a high number of possessions and the ability to read and get first hands on the ball at stoppages. I understand he lacks pace, but so do many good midfielders. He is a natural ball finder and ball accumulator in a team that has so few players capable of racking up high possession tallies. His role in the team would be to win first possession from a stoppage and to dish it out and I've seen enough poise and balance in his play to know that he can do this. Pace is not critical in this role, but I accept that he would need to improve his endurance. He has also had injuries and has struggled for continuity in his footy. And he is only a third year player. I would be shocked if the club delisted him, it would show a distinct lack of patience. He's a must keep for mine.

I didn't think we were that bad today. I thought we had a crack for most of the game and didn't give up. Did anyone expect us to win with the players we had out? Throw Clark and Jurrah into that forward line, Jamar and Jones into the middle and I reckon that's already a 6 goal difference. We were even in the clearances, won the contested footy and even won the inside 50s (an area we were extremely poor at in the first 7 or 8 games). The difference today was the Lions ability to move the ball really quickly and accurately from half back to the forward line (our defensive pressure was not good enough in this respect) and the flip side being our slow ball movement out of our backline. This meant that Brisbane were able to get it in quick to an open forward line whereas our entries were slow and laborious allowing the Lions time to get players back to crowd our forward line. To me all this highlighted is what we already know - we lack crumbing forwards who can apply defensive pressure to opposition defenders and we lack class and pace in the midfield which greatly affects our ability to move the ball forward with pace and precision. Midfield class and pace is what we've talked about all year so it's no surprise. We obviously need to address this through the draft. But I was happy that we matched them inside the contests and got the ball forward enough times to kick a winning score. I'm not at all worried about that result as we were well below full strength and it will be a different team when we play them next time.