Rhino Richards

Both Malthouse and Pagan were blessed with teams that had the quality to win multiple flags. They both coached well when a team list is strong. Neither in my opinion have successfully built a list from scratch and their efforts to date at their current clubs places a question mark over their coaching records. On that basis I dont believe Pagan would have necessarily had any more profound effect on Neitz and other players then other coaches. It should be remember that Carey was Wayne Carey and Neitz was going to be his own footballer and not another Carey. Pike actually played in a premiership at North so it can be argued that Pike did achieve/mature under Pagan as part of a successful side. Pagan has shown by the list he has assembled and maintained at Carlton that he carries a significant level of garbage there. His cause has not been helped to great extent by the dyfunctional disaster known as the Carlton Board. A divided and dysfunctional board is a cancer for on field success. Balme had his issues, but no coach can hope to succeed with long term injuries to players like Schwartz, Lyon, Charles, Prymke, Tingay, G Lovett, Jakovich on top of the normal run of the mill injuries.

I was given a copy of this book as a kid and still have it and treasure it greatly. A book on our eventual 13th premiership would also be valued highly as memory of the achievement!

I understand that 5 to 6 years ago the football department wanted to but the Board did not want to raise supporter backlash and stymied the deal. Its a fair point you raise though.

Interesting post. I think at their respective peaks, Richo shaded Neitz but IMO Richo has slid considerably in the past couple of years. As a footballer Richo is probably the better athlete from a standing sprint to his ability to take a grab. However, Richo's highs have also been accompanied by periods of significant lows. Neitz has been a more even contributor over his career. However Neitz leadership skills and presence on the field blows the trademark petulance of Richo. Richo's dodgy temperament has been a sterling contributor to a talented and athletically gifted player who has failed so often to commit and do the 1%ers. FWIW, DD, Neitz often played forward well before 2000 and did so often since ND started but your point is fair that much of Neitz's earlier years were played back. Its worth remembering that throughout their careers, both have played in some truly crap sides as against the Browns, Lloyds and Tredreas of this world.

Exactly my thoughts Ash and I hope they dont do it against Melbourne. As one of the chief critics of State of Origin (past use by date) and International Rules (a PR disaster waiting to happen and it did), I am happy to support the celebration of the impact of Aboriginal footballers on Australian football. I welcome their contribution and approach to the game. For the history of derogatory behaviour they have had to endure in the VFL/AFL since Pastor Doug Nicholls and Syd Jackson they have left an indelible mark on AFL and we are all the better for it. From the day that Nicky Winmar proudly lifted his jumper and pointed to the colour of his skin to the faithful of the Filth at Vic Park, there is much to celebrate and honour. I think the Aboriginal All stars game is appropriate but why do they have to play Essendon? I still hope neither Davey or Pickett get injured though.

Too much time. In regard to your comments: 1. ND's Leon Davis comment was typical dry ND humour and you would be amiss to attribute any more to it than that. It was not a general comment about aboriginal players. Leon Davis failed because Leon Davis is a limited footballer whose skill set is shown up in finals. Michael Long makes that assumption pure folly. My comments on Aaron Davey were from pure observation. I would make the comment about Bruce as well. Its not a generalisation about Aboriginals. Light bodied players will often struggle in finals. Davey has. However I think he can overcome that but gee he would have to play well with the other parts of his game. 2. Alwyn Davey was recruited because Alwyn Davey impressed a side. Its garbage to think he picked on Aaron's shirt tail. 3. How would you know what Don's recruiter's were thinking when they recruited Alwyn? 4. Before you go to far,Alwyn Davey has to cut it at AFL level. Any comparison with Aaron is highly uneven in a players first or second season. 5. I would be skeptical of a player who had an attitude problem either tall or small. Its interesting though you can gush over one player who has not played an AFL football but has a brother that has made it while you are critical of player you havent seen. Hayes wont play this year. So by the time he is say in 2 to 3 years, Pickett will have retired. And given Hayes's size he is unlikely to compete directly with Neaves and Hughes. 6. 3 goals in an intraclub is no where near AFL. Its like win a Bendigo heat race and talking up a horse's Melb Cup chances.

Welcome Lampshade. May I suggest the following website for starters......... http://melbournefc.com.au/default.asp?pg=history Good luck

If you expect MFC to be playing 2 rookies this year then its going to be difficult injury riddled year for the Club.

Of Dennis, Don or Ted????

Only if Hayes can show he can cut it at AFL level. Some rookies make it, many dont. I hope he succeeds but its no certainty. Who said Alwyn is going to make it? Both Hayes and Alwyn D may not make the grade. So the question is peripheral at best. CAC will get credit for recruiting a good player. I would be seriously worried if being "the brother of an MFC "star"" is a serious criteria above the basic attributes to play the game.

If that was actually the criteria for the selection of Alwyn Davey then the team that took him are complete fools. Players should be selected on their merits not just because of family connections. Until I can establish that Alwyn Davey is in his right capable of playing AFL footballer I am not so sure I would want him. FWIW, in the 1970's I wanted Tom Flower to be in the same side as Robbie Flower. There was one problem though. Tom was not good enough. Notwithstanding his skilful cameos, until Aaron Davey can show that he has maturity and capacity to withstand finals pressure and perform in September he will never be star some have labelled him. He has the potential to do it in September and could be the spark to lift the side during the course of the game. However, his performance in the 2006 finals was poor.

I admire players who give their darnedest to be the best footballer they possibly can and make a contest. I can name a string of MFC players who did not have anywhere near's Yze's talent but they give their all. Miller, Carroll, Whelan and Godfrey never take a step or hold back. All are varying certainties to be picked each week but they put in. If he breaks Neitz's games record I'll feel honour of past champions has been let down. If you have respect for David Neitz you 'd feel likewise.

Jaded is right on the money. Yze is a talented down hill skier who has perpetually refused to commit his body to a contest. Yze revels against weak undisciplined defences that don't properly man up on him. He dissolves like a disprin when the play is pressured, defenders close checking and physical commitment is required. It is no surprise that August September have been lean times for him. The examples of the Collingwood, Kangaroos, Bulldogs and Cats match highlight these attributes. They were his best 5 games while his other games were negligible and he was frequently lazy and unaccountable. Its a pity that it has been such a waste of his gifts. Coming to the end of his career, his place in the side will be in jeopardy if he plays like he ended 2006.

Correct. Nice call on the Bex though.

How about the fact that they had 21 better players that won them the flag. When the 2005 GF was there to be won, Jolly watched it from the bench. Armas was in the right place at the right time to kick a perfunctionary goal. Up to then he had been out of his class. I am not sure what this has got to do with hanging onto depth. Jolly was traded sensibly when MFC worked he was not going to add to our ruckstocks. Paying out more to the better players above their market value will not necessarily make them better players and resolve the issue of the quality of the top six. In fact it will only increase the respective contractual rates for all players in the market. Depth players have an important role. I dont see that role as being relevant to enhancing best six on the list unless your drafting or player development is an issue and your best picks dont fulfill their potential and become your depth. I dont think that has been the case at MFC. Correct. So MFC have to have had access to talent through early draft picks and sage drafting. That's the prime way to improve your list. Drafting Dean Cox as a rookie helps too! Poyas failed at two Clubs and has had six years in the system. Not good enough. Rigoni was never the player he was after his back injury. He good when he joined MFC but not Top 6. But useful never the less. You are right they will hopefully worth a lot because they will become that good. The Club is managing their payments in accordance with AFL rules and the market place. If you want to retain a player you need to pay him near or at market to retain them. "Going shallow" will force such players to the PSD to chase a better deal and undermining the bottom end of your list without enhancing your top. Its not a matter of allocation of the TPP between the better and the lesser.

You seem to be putting the argument that we have focussed too much on depth (bottom six) at the detriment of our best six. I dont think they are one and the same thing. Improving your best six is about good drafting, coaching and player development and player fitness helps too. Fortuitous trading can also supplement a list I dont think that any of our depth players have restricted any of the potential stars from rising to the top. I dont believe you necessarily get better players because you pay them more. In fact the AFL is riddled with the corpses of Clubs who have paid above market. A team's lists are made of players in your best 22, players who are available but not best 22 (8 to 10 players) and younger players who may be in development stages (4 to 8). In total that is 38 players. Leaving aside the development players there is 30 to 34 players to cover the needs of a Club over 26+ weeks of football. That is a pretty tight number. To go with less than 30 AFL standard players is leaving a team to risk. A luxury of 4th HBF may be the case of a player than can play a number of positions and Ezra Poyas is a good VFL player period who has failed at AFL level here and Richmond. Players like Poyas become the depth you devalue. The issue with bidding for class players is that: 1. Very few come onto the open market as all Clubs are trying to maximise their list talent. 2. Every Club will bid for them if and when they do come onto the market. 3. Such class will not come cheap and tossing depth players as sweeteners will not work. Depth players have no trade value 4. In the past couple of years players with any ability that have come available are either at the end of their carrer or have their ability potential marred by a chequered playing/off field track record. I think the Club has done well to develop the list. It would be nice to have a Bate/Mclean develop into the superstars we have not had at this Club since R Flower.

FWIW Jaded, I thought Sylvia did alot of unsung heavy work against Sydney at the SCG in 2006. Its not a GF but I thought the game pressure and the attrition rate on the MFC team that day placed players performances in that game in high regards. You are right Sylvia may have achieved little to date. But if its between Sylvia and Godders to rise on GF day. Sylvia can but Godders never will. I have seen enough of Sylvia to suggest he has more than potential . He needs to put ot together. I hope he does in 2007.

A decent ruckman (not mandatory 200 plus. How many are 200cm plus and decent?) would be advantageous but Hannibal's right that the broader midfield is critical in this day and age. Old's stats while trending down over the seven year period for contested possessions in % terms actually reduces at a quicker rate in the past three years than the previous four reinforcing where the game is heading to at present.

DD, I said that the use of early round draft picks to get Lamb, Smith and Armas were not the best use of such picks given the flaws that readily appeared in their game. I dont fully understand what goes on in a recruiters mind that makes one player stand out from other players beyond the Bryce Gibbs types that just reek of class. Lamb had six years on our list without ever making the grade. I would have thought that a better assessment would have been made earlier in his career. I actually gave qualified support for the extra year for Smith. Armas got a 2 yr contract at the end of his 2nd year. Might have been one year too many at MFC regardless of being in the right place at the right time and winning a premiership medal.

Steve, Jolly was the back up to White and spat the dummy about lack of opportunity to be No 1 in 2004. I thought we traded him at the right time. In 2004, had White gone down we would had a very green Jamar to follow. Armas was possibly held a year too long but may have had a contractual arrrangment to cover that. More a poor draft selection Bizz was retained as a player to compete for best 22 in 2005 especially with the untimely death of Troy B. Bizz had the Club over a barrel wanting 3 years. Club wanted 2 and caved in then gave him 3 years. I would have let him walk at that point rather than given him 3 years. 426 possibly deserved another year fully fit without injury or illness to see if he made the grade. He did not and was not good enough. Draft selection policy in question regarding the risk of taking big men early in the draft. The retention of Lamb for so long on our list was an error as was using such a high pick for him (Pick 13 in 1998) However I am not sure how the retention of these players as depth has curtailed the Club's access to the top quality players. Aside from Jolly none of the players had trade value at respective points. There is probably more of an issue with draft selection. However overall CAC's record is pretty good. Furthemore we did not have draft pick access to the cream of the competition. So while I note your sentiments about some players I dont understand how the retention issue blocks the focus on higher talent.

Jolly was a rookie and Armas taken at No 25 in the 2001 draft. How do you link them wirh the going for too much depth rather than the top end?

I have not got the team that played that night in front of me but I would be hoping that Moloney is back in the mix. I would hope that PJ can make the necessary improvements to his game to be a worthy inclusion in this running game. i would not cancel out a draft pick popping up like a Bartram. And I would have Bartram back in as well. I am also banking on 12 months development of our key younger players. I do note that Pickett ran out of steam in the business end of the season so trading does not always deliver the goods.

The issue is not necessarily that they traded with aggression but that they traded wisely for net benefit of their list. The question may not be answered for a longer period of time if it can be correctly answered at all.

Hannibal is quite right questioning what a bargain is and how would you know beyond a distant opinion. Unfortunately, you will never know what we would have to give up to have traded so time will give a distorted answer because you wont have the facts. I disagree that we are going in with the same brigade as many of our quality players should be entering their period of maturity as footballers I would expect (hope) that level of improvement would offset any negatives (form or fitness). If it does not, we wont improve. Even if we did trade for a Gardiner (gulp) or a JJ if the younger brigade dont improve as footballers this year then we will not rise above our current positino and may even fall

Which player that was available from another Club during trading week would be likely to prevent a late season fade out? Also what would we have had to give up off our list to get that player and what would have been the net result? I trust its not a case of trading for trading's sake.