Vogon Poetry

Casey 80 v Frankston 26. Brayshaw, Kent, Balic allgood. Frost very good down back. Petty some good things.

Casey 53 v Frankston 14. Quarter time. best: Brayshaw, Hannan, Balic, JKH, Kent. Actually we look great with not a weak player. Baker and Spargo look good. More at at half time.

The discussion on Spargo is both interesting and encouraging, from his descriptions we at least will find out what his potential is because he will give himself every chance. What I also find interesting is the continual references from different things I've read about him being a much higher pick other than for his injury. If those reports are right we've picked up someone who was potentially top 10 at pick 29 because he hurt his shoulder, an injury that is unlikely to have long-term implications. My question is this. Why do recruiters mark down players that have injuries in their draft year to such an extent? Two recent players that have been marked down are Lever and Burton, players who are now playing well above their draft pick and close to where why were expected to go if they had not been injured. I'm sure more enthusiastic junior footy followers will know of other examples but others that come to mind are Joel Selwood, Jake Stringer and even perhaps Chris Judd. If Spargo was genuinely top 10 (or top 5 as Dazzle I think mentioned) how does he get to 29? It's even more confusing when you consider Geelong and WCE (from memory) had multiple picks shortly before we picked him up. I understand his issue with size but that aside the practice of marking down players who are injured in their draft year to such an extent is strange and I think it presents excellent opportunities particularly if you have a strong list.

I'm pleased that the organization of the Casey Football Club is now becoming a professional and well regarded organization but I believe that the location of the Casey ground and the conditions that the players play under is to the significant detriment of the MFC. The ground is poorly located in terms of weather. Cranbourne has a significantly higher rainfall than Melbourne meaning the ground is often wetter than AFL players play on. The ground has little if any meaningful protection from the wind and those that have attended on a regular basis will celebrate when a game is played in conditions where the wind is not a significant factor. Moreover, in recent years we have played a number of games at night where dew makes conditions slippery and difficult. These poor conditions result in poor skills and turn games into stoppage and tackle events. There is little chance to practice game plan ideas as chains of possessions are all too infrequent. Players like Weideman get little chance to practice their craft and the opportunity for others is also limited. This of course wouldn't be a problem if AFL football was played in similar conditions but it isn't. I recognize that not all other AFL clubs play in perfect conditions but Casey is as bad as I've seen except perhaps for North Ballarat. It seems we are at Casey for the long haul and I hope we see some genuine attempt to improve the situation of the ground with the planting of appropriate trees and other wind protection if possible. It would be nice if they could do something for spectators too, a decent grandstand that allowed you to get a good view of the game would be welcome but I understand that is probably well down the priority list. Frankly viewing is so bad and the ground location so poor I'm surprised anyone can be bothered going. I gave up a few years ago.

The best 22 and "in form" and "playing your role" and "fully fit" message is of course bullocks. The same was said last year but what really happened. Hannan plays round one after one practice game the week before for Casey. JKH gets rushed in after injury only to play a couple of very poor games Joel Smith is selected round one after injury Joel Smith gets selected after his injury on the scantest of games and performance at Casey Cory Maynard is promoted and then dropped after one game where he was far from our worst Viney gets rushed back to the team after surgery. Others may be able to think of other examples. Some of these things worked and some didn't. Goodwin wants to give hope to everyone in preseason so these things are said. He can't ever say otherwise. Do you really think that a 90% fit Oliver will be overlooked for a one hundred percent fit Billy Stretch? Goodwin will pick the team he thinks has the best chance of winning. He'll weigh up a players form, ability, injury status and role (amongst other things) for a game and select our best team.

No, Bending the Knee - King of the North.....

Wasn't trying to flavour the conversation Franky, just musing as to how a guy who is so good could fall that far down the draft. Not defending BP either.

You've got a problem letting go don't you. Couldn't help yourself with Saty and now continue to pot Watts at every opportunity. He's gone, you've won, move on.

He wasn't the only one. I've spoken to two other club's recruiting people about Blease. One said they wouldn't have recruited him ever and the other said they didn't have him in the top 70 and couldn't believe it when we read his name out. That doesn't mean all clubs thought the same. Geelong took him from us (they did have some intel at AFL level by then) and there may have been others that would have taken him. Regarding Sloane it's interesting that he fell to the 40's as it indicates he wasn't rated highly and everyone got it wrong as he'd be clearly be picked up very early if the draft was redone.

I think it's very difficult to tell a persons strength by looking at them and Jnrmac's statement was absolute. I just wondered if he had hard evidence or if it was based on using his eyes which to me means it's just a guess.

How do you know?

The reality is a journey is started with the first step. CAC started the process, he didn't finish it. It was tracking nicely until he left and Richardson took over when it stagnated. If you think Richmond went from duds to Premiers in one season of work you live in la-la land. Anyway both sides presented, people can make up their own minds. The reality is clearly that CAC was headhunted from Melbourne to Richmond, headhunted to GWS and now headhunted to GCS. That's fact and not conjecture. It suggests that people who have been in footy a very long time recognize his abilities. His efforts were recognized by Gary March despite the fact he left several years ago. If you know more it's a shame your great skills are restricted to a football forum rather than leading our chosen team to a long-awaited flag.

You may not have read the article that DD has highlighted above. These quotes are from Gary March who was the President in 2007 until Peggy O'Neill took over. “The unsung heroes in the Richmond story are the Craig Camerons and the Blair Hartleys, who have been criticised, but if you actually look at their record, it’s pretty bloody good. It wasn’t long ago people were criticising Blair over his recruiting of Bachar Houli and Shaun Grigg. “People scoffed at us. I don’t think people understand the legacy of Craig Cameron and Blair Hartley. The board and the ­administration should take some credit too, but they completely changed Richmond’s philosophy on list management." “Craig was the catalyst. He was the first to open up my eyes about a five- to eight-year plan around list management." I'll let you read the rest of the article if you're interested but my guess is you aren't really. But it's just ignorant to call his time at Richmond "stagnant". In case you missed it Richmond won the Premiership this year and he was one of the architects.

I can assure you that I'm not related to CAC but I do know very well what his job was at MFC and RFC. If the facts don't suit you and you want to run away from the discussion that's fine but don't justify it with "this clouds both your judgements". The reality is I'm afraid you're just plain wrong. It's fact, not a judgement. I don't have the same knowledge as DD about Barry but he was opposition analyst at MFC prior to taking the recruiting job when CAC was headhunted by Richmond. He had one full time assistant (Gary Burleigh if my memory serves me correctly) and after one year in the job Tim Harrington joined as List Manager. Barry was never responsible for the TPP or negotiating player contracts which CAC was, that was handled by Chris Connolly.

This is wrong I'm afraid. CAC worked as both the list manager and recruiting manager. He was responsible for player contracts, TPP calculations, recruiting, trading and list structure. He was a one-man band and it was a credit to him that he did as good a job as he did given that we now have Viney, Taylor, O'Donnell and others doing what CAC was doing.

I'm not sure you're right but whatever the situation they would know if they didn't perform they wouldn't be a MFC next year.

Well you need to recognize that Craig has never lost his job. He was headhunted by Richmond and did a very good job there managing the exits of Miller and Wallace and establishing a credible football department. He left Richmond to pursue his love of horseracing but didn't know he was getting into bed with a crook. He was headhunted by Campbell at GWS and then headhunted by Evans at GCS. It's not a bad CV. As for his time at Melbourne he was good. He lost some draft picks when Gutnick exposed a previous administrations salary cap cheating. His first few drafts were very good. 1997 drafts landed Johnstone, Rigoni. His first rookie draft was Nathan Bassett, Daniel Ward, Matthew Bishop, Robbo and Junior McDonald. He had some poor years as well. What is often overlooked is he was doing the job of about 5 full-timers. There were no development coaches, no full-time staff sifting through hours of vision - just him. I get frustrated with the criticism of Craig (along with others) because it's never balanced with a recognition of the circumstances of the Club. The reality is we did very well under Fagan, Cameron and Daniher given our circumstances.

You talk too much sense DD. Love your work.

I think you're underestimating a players ability to know where they stand in terms of staying on the list. Blokes like McKenna, Bugg, Kent, Pedo, AVB and JKH (this is not an exhaustive list) know that if they don't perform the chances of getting another contract are slim. Telling them what they need to do is telling them they'll be delisted if they don't.

I'm not a huge Kent fan but these sort of comments interest me. Do you know this for a fact or are you deducing it from your observations?

I don't agree. I like that the tradition of the better players getting the lower numbers, but I'm old and don't like a lot of the modern changes I see around me. It's not a big deal, just a preference. And I like that some numbers at a club are "special". It gives an opportunity to reward certain players and recognize their contribution. It all just adds to the richness of a Club's history and culture.

All you had to do was look one post above.

A great list and I can say that I was at 19 of the 20 games only missing the Sydney game where Schwarta kicked that bag. I'd contend there are two others worthy of consideration. The Melbourne v Brisbane game in 2002 in Brisbane where we were about 6 goals down at quarter time and won. Ward and Neita standouts. The other was I think 2005 R21 v Western Bulldogs. Jeff White kicked two late last quarter goals and we won by 3 points to keep our finals hopes alive.

Great news for Jack, I wish him all the best. Just as an aside does anyone know how Jack Grimes went this year. He chose not to take a one year contract which is interesting given what Trenners has done.

DJ you were the one who said compared to 12 other clubs we are poor. I asked you to substantiate your statement. I'm not going to do the work for you.