titan_uranus

If you read what I wrote you'll find that I couldn't be bothered looking for any others. And I still can't. You seem totally incapable of grasping the idea that you're pathetic argument that the recruiters aren't any good is based almost entirely on the benefit of hindsight. And I appreciate you not wasting any more of anyone's time.

Another reason why Tapscott should be playing up the ground.

Oh, twice? Didn't know that. Point is, he's shite.

All true. But what does any of it have to do with effort? Anyone who thinks the effort shown against West Coast, or in the second half agaisnt Hawthorn, was good enough, is delusional. I don't care how young or inexperienced we are, we should be putting in 100% effort 100% of the time, and that's not happening. That is cause for concern and disappointment. Whether Bailey's game plan is going to win us a premiership is also, somewhat, distinct from our players being young and inexperienced. Of course that will impact on our ability to actually execute it, but I'm becoming less and less able to believe that it is good enough to beat sides like Collingwood who employ the forward press.

Matt Burgan: "Melbourne won't believe its luck that a player some recruiting managers regard as the best in the draft will slip through to No.4" Source: http://www.afl.com.au/Season2007/News/NABAFLDraftBlogwithMattBurgan/BlogArticle/tabid/8123/Default.aspx?newsId=53419 And from the same source: "It is understood West Coast is extremely keen to secure Maric with its third selection. Melbourne (potentially at No.14, but more likely No.21) is another club closely monitoring his whereabouts, with Port Adelaide (No.16), Geelong (No.17), Richmond (No.18) and Essendon (No.23) also in the mix. Viewed as a No.10-25 selection, several recruiters believe Maric is by far the best kick in the draft – a massive attribute. " Just one example, sure, but I can't be bothered wasting any more time on you.

Wow. He made the finals. Once. Spiffing.

One of Grimes or Tapscott needs to be moved up the ground. I don't care which one, but they're being wasted on the half back line, and I'd rather play someone like Joel Mac there and use Grimes or Tapscott's talents where we can benefit more from them.

Moloney's shown this year he's better than Jones. Jones is a C grader. Moloney's at least a B. Point is valid though, our midfield is poor, and we are banking a lot on the return of two kids in Scully and McKenzie, one of whom might not be here next year. We need a big lift from those who are already in the side.

Richmond's two finals series in 28 years comes close too.

If we raise the flag on Sunday...I will vomit.

And because he didn't exactly set the world on fire at Freo.

Should we start a thread every time a player from another club gets injured? Far out.

Earth, and yes. Seriously, getting rid of him now serves little purpose. If you care to cast your mind back to 2007, Geelong at Round 5 were 2-3, and they were going through a similar crisis. Paul Chapman in the media was getting antsy, getting angry with the players. I don't need to remind people what happened after that. My point is not that we are going to win basically every game from here. My point is that within a season things can change. Giving Bailey no chance to do that is stupid and reactionary. Giving him more time to prove himself is smart. Culling him before the end of the year if we don't improve, though, is OK.

I think it may actually be a decent crowd. People like us are eager to see how we respond. If we don't give a yelp this week, then the following week against North at Etihad is going to be a shocking crowd.

Every conclusion and statement you've made has been on the back of hindsight. Every conclusion and statement I've made has been mindful of the fact that the recruiters can do no more than use the knowledge available to make the best educated choice they can. In 2007, Morton was considered top 5 material. Now we can easily question whether or not, if we re-held that draft today, Morton would be taken fourth. But at the time, there was no such question. So I have no problem with that, even if I am disappointed. Maric, too, was considered top 25, and again, I don't blame the recruiters even though I am frustrated in Maric's lack of development. You take the view that, since the players have not lived up to their draft position, the recruiters have failed. I take the view that, since at the time these players had the wraps on them, the recruiters did what we should be expecting of them, and that should be enough to satisfy us. You base your view on hindsight, I don't.

Semantics. Would you say that the way a team moves the ball (i.e. whether it be predominantly by run and carry and handpass, or by foot) constitutes a game plan? I would, and thus, when Geelong changed this aspect a couple of weeks ago, that to me was a change in game plan. A change in tactics, to continue the semantics debate, would be playing another tall in the forward line, or tagging a midfielder, or double teaming a forward. Semantics is fun.

I agree that a game plan can be adjusted. I've seen it happen more than once, a prime example being Geelong two weeks ago against Sydney. DB doesn't seem to like switching things up mid-match, or even mid-season. He seems to want to persevere with the game plan he thinks will win us a premiership. As it stands, it may well turn out rosy. But I am still quite unconvinced that the style we're playing is going to get us there. And I've been saying all along that this is the process that DB has wanted to implement since he arrived, and it has its merits in that you start to instill in your players the way they are going to play 2-3 years down the track. Otherwise you're constantly chopping and changing.

I've heard your point. I reject it. Yes, we have drafted players with high draft picks who have not developed into the stars that we may have expected them to be. I will not, though, say that the recruiters thus got it wrong. That conclusion cannot be drawn. Yes, recruiters would throw up names. But again, the coaches will have more than a say when it comes to draft day and what we aim to get out of it.

This is a better take on the situation. Whilst it is too easy to say 'oh, Maric, Strauss and Morton have all failed to live up to expectations, therefore the recruiters suck', it is fair to say that we haven't received what we may have expected to receive from these players. They and the coaches take the majority of the blame here.

Can't see the point in doing anything this early. Clubs often have poor patches in a year, and whilst ours is about as poor as you can get, there's still more than enough time for us to turn things around. If by the second half of the year, though, we're not playing with a decent level of intensity and we don't look like we're improving, then his position will need to be considered. By that I mean he won't see the year out if we don't lift our game.

OK, I'm losing faith in your ability to think. If all the other recruiters didn't take him first time around (and I'm still talking about Darling here) then what difference would it make if we had Prendergast or anyone else? Clearly the consensus was not that Darling was 'the best in the land'. Otherwise he would have been taken by someone. He wasn't. That's because, at the time (read that bit again), he wasn't. OK? Further, you're insinuating that our recruitment team didn't do its homework. Sorry, I don't buy that. Do you have any evidence at all that they picked Strauss without knowing if he could get the ball? Of course you don't. Clearly at the moment he's struggling, and it doesn't look like we made a good choice with pick 17, but it's BP's job to do his homework on players, so saying he didn't do that is just silly. You're implying the recruitment team is completely separate from the coaching staff. Have you considered the possibility that the coaches have a say in who comes to the club?

OK. One more time. You can either play a game plan that suits what we are capable of now, or one that suits what we are capable of when we are more likely to challenge for a flag. Perfecting a game plan now is all well and good but in 2-3 years when our list changes again, when our currently undersized forwards (Watts, Cook, Fitzpatrick etc.) become capable of playing AFL, when our running mids are stronger, fitter and faster, it might not be the same game plan we want to use then. So if we start with the ideal, and work towards it, we give ourselves the best chance of winning a premiership. This is not to say that the game plan we're trying to use is actually going to win us a premiership. What I'm saying is that DB has, since he got here, tried to implement what he thinks is a game plan that we can use on Grand Final day down the track to win the flag.

You didn't watch the Sydney game last year? Or the Brisbane game? Or any of our other wins? We push numbers up the ground and behind the ball, we wait for the turnover, then we move the ball with run and carry and handpass, with our players running towards goal to catch flat footed zoning members of the opposition off guard. Does it work? Well, we have won games doing it. But as Garry Lyon, amongst others, has said, it's a high risk/high reward style. When it works, it looks good (e.g. Sydney, Brisbane from last year). We carve teams up on the rebound with pressure in our defensive half, and with footspeed and skill we stream forward and break the game open. When it doesn't work, we get destroyed. If we don't apply pressure our structure falls apart because too many players end up in the same area, we don't run or chase hard enough, we don't create the turnovers required to get the ball, we don't go inside 50 enough, we don't have a forward line, and we generally have no sound method for moving the ball out of the 50. I'm not convinced that this style of play will win us a premiership, as I think we have been left behind with the evolution of the forward press. We defend from too far back, we need our players further up the ground, and we need to be far, far more aggressive at the contest. I'd like to see us keep more numbers forward of the ball, keep taller players closer to goal and leading towards, not away from, the ball carrier.

No, what you need to realise is that if all 16 clubs choose not to draft a player, then clearly there can't be enormous wraps on him. Which then makes any argument that we should have taken him ridiculous. Bagging the recruiting team after the fact is all too easy.

But it's not a mistake if you reasonably believe that player is the best available. At the time we picked Watts, for example, there was no debate. He was better than Hurley. But now, with hindsight, people are questioning that call. More incredulously, people are whinging about us not taking Darling like we were idiots. Meanwhile every other club overlooked him too. So it's not like he had massive wraps but we chose not to take him.