deanox

Can I commend you both for discussing this topic without it descending into the usual creep on here? Fantastic to see discussion not abuse. It's amazing that people can have different interpretations and opinions, and be able to admit that the other view is valid (even if they don't agree) without name calling. And all this on an internet forum! Well done.

If we had merged our would have hurt at the time but I wonder how much it would still be hurting if we had won 3 flags like Fitzroy/Brisbane? The team would have been in our state, we could have been active members etc. Not saying we should have but it would be an interesting sliding doors scenario. I think it will be sweeter this way when we do rise again!

He was actually Adamm Maric's emo inspiration.

Redleg, is there any source of information where one can get full details happened at that time, like a book or an independent researched article, our only word of mouth?

GNF brings us insider info and then bam, you cut him down with one fowl swoop.:D

Me too which suggests that while this coach nerds to build culture and win games and try to win a flag, it is important that they realise a major outcome of their tenure is a stable list that can maintain is hold. Even if we don't win a flag we need to build for 10 years of sustained success, not peaking in 5 then dropping away again.

Does anyone think we'll win a flag in the next five years? If that isn't reality should one of our coaching criteria be "ability to leave the house in order" ie build a list and culture that perpetuates, not dies? Roos did this, I don't think Matthews got a chance, Eade didn't and I think in the end Williams may have been there too long. Thoughts?

Thanks rpfc, that's the point I was trying to make.

I would like for the people behind the push to be identified to the members, including the people he would have on his board. It is not a case of two party preferred like politics.

Ok maybe you're right and it's a bit harsh but Voss's night club incident after his playing days was similar. Voss is a much better leader but there is something about them that makes me think "I could imagine those two at school together, carrying on and the back of the class"!

Out of interest there have been a couple of ex Melbourne people maligned on here recently, and i have read people say they aren't welcome at the club. Cameron Schwab is Melbourne supporter who made an absolute mess of his CEO role, but tried to do his job. Brent Moloney is a Melbourne supporter who carried on like a pork chop and hurt the club with his antics on field after a number of years of service and one good year. Both should be and will be welcome back at the club. That should also bee dependent on both of them being willing to embrace they club, admit mistakes and not being malice towards others. For some reason I don't think Beamer will ever be able to do that. My two cents: the image is petulant, childish and exactly what most of us expected from him (apart from two or three on here). It proves he isn't a leaders boot lace. I would have liked him to remain part of pour club because he isn't a naff player, but he is certainly a bad influence and associated with poor culture. I bet he doesn't back chat to Voss. (Although I think Voss probably isn't far above Moloney's level)

I interpreted the comment as "knowing he (Toumpas) will take some to come on and not be an immediate impact player (like wines), and that even though he was available and ready huge may have been a longer term start depending on how he recovered. That he did get ready doesn't mean they expected him to be ready when selecting him.

The question isn't interview or head hunt, it's application or head hunt. All parties will be interviewed long and hard and the position discussed in detail. We will head hunt the people we think are worth talking to, but will we accept applications from other candidates not on our short list?

This week you pick your absolute best available. Players who are most likely to get us a win. Sounds obvious, but I don't want players picked on development or potential. Mind set will come into it - players who may have a point to prove cone in, players who may be disappointed get a rest. Our best chance of a win this week, let's make it happen.

The players were already taking the game on, were play on more than any team in the competition. The lack of skills and they lack of quality players who get to the "right areas" is the reason that when we played on we turned it over. When we start missing targets players get worried and start hesitating, making things worse. I'm not saying Neeld could coach, or that he should still be there but if we play well this weekend, if we somehow jag a win, it isn't because there players are given freedom and allowed to play with flair, it will because the players work harder, because mentally they will be reengaged, and possibly because as a unit they will galvanize together in the wake of Neelds departure. I hope these things happen. The only thing Craig can do is say "go on guys, you know the plan, wet train for this every week, give out another crack, try your guts out and back yourselves in."

The saints will be shaking in their boots.

Problem is when we do that everyone says " why are we playing player W, he is a spud". Well the answer is we have to play 22 each week, and if only 10 are good enough, 15 aren't ready and 15 are spuds then someone is going to have a problem with who fills the last 12 spots. RE Magner and Couch, they aren't good enough and won't make a difference. Ok they may get 20 touches but they won't be great touches, they won't be able to user options around due to lack of fitness and pace and they won't use the ball that we'll. They'll do ok though. But not enough to make that much difference.

Good point. This is why I think assistance will be in the form of mini draft or some other help. I'm not sure pick 19 will help us get anyone who will impact (although it may allow us to trade pick 2 for such a player and still draft a good young prospect).

Spot on description I reckon. A thousand things have gone wrong and any number of opportunities for us to at least pull out selves up and float have been missed.

Salary cap breach related draft punishments. Compounded by the defection of Scott Thompson, followed by the 2003 draft (when we were genuinely bottoming out after our last ownership assault) being particularly weak, and shone terrible draft selections along the way. As a result we have not had a core group of players and successive boards and football departments have never been able to make it work, despite their best efforts. It all comes back to this - three core of the team was never there to provide good culture, or to offer onfield leadership. We have been plugging holes and trying to balance the list since then. Ann amazing list manager/recruiter may have been able to salvage us along the ride, array the ship and make us competitive, but for the last 10 years under successive boards and football departments our list has always been unbalanced.

Cheers, I might do it later, but I'm sure I've seen days tables with that info in it somewhere else so I'll try and find it first. But given that you haven't done this analysis, or seen such data, how do you identify that top 5 picks are three most relevant for your comparison? Why not top 6 picks? Or top 9 picks? First round picks? Apart from gut feel (that top 5 is better), there may be no reason why any analysis of number of top 5 picks is relevant to this discussion, any more than a number of other brackets.

Ben I asked earlier, can you or anyone else provide stats for average number of games played per draft pick bracket (ie 1-5, 5-10, 10-20)? I'm not disputing your point but I'd like to understand how much of a difference top 5 pick is compared to top 10 or top 20 etc. Top 5 is convenient because from memory we haven't had to many picks in the 6-10 group. Also,given that we have been down the bottom for 7 years, it makes sense that we'd have more top 5 picks than other clubs who have risen and fallen, which is why i think "first round" is better analysis of how much of a leg up we've had. Also I think it's worth noting that to get extra first round picks we've had to give up players (except the PPs), which means net gain is probably "equal" apart from the PPs, of which there has been a few.

Every one of those top 5 picks were the correct selection based on the knowledge of the time. That the players haven't developed well is a different question. We've made lots of mistakes with first round picks but not with the top 5 picks.

Cheers Rhino. Just add him on the pile of "shouldn't have picked him up" with the rest of them.

I know he sounds like a good tall, but it would be criminal for us to add more KPPs when we are so bereft of midfielders.