timD

Do you mean - do they know its terrible?

We have had this discussion before about how much weight is given to emotional and personality traits when recruiting teenagers. I think it leads to clubs letting a Darling go until Pick 26.

But away from that argument - I just feel as though the U/18 competition is further and further away from the rigours of AFL footy that Oliver Wines is the exception that proves the rule. He is a big boy with supreme confidence in his talent and his body.

I feel for Toumpas as he is asked to perform in an environment different to a Mayes or a Macrae. We don't have the talented bodies in the midfield that allow a young player to play their role and not much more. There is less easy footy for Toumpas, there is more responsibility.

I am not ready to judge his ceiling. Frankly, I gave Nathan Jones a ceiling and he smashed right through it and I am punch-drunk from the plumage and the experience.

Toumpas might or might not - but that question won't be answered for some time yet.

rpfc, I think we've had the conversation about coaches rather than kids, but I might well have forgotten.

Either way, I think that the data needs to be used for what it says reliably and validly. I have no idea what it said about darling and neither do you. To suggest that we used data to stay away from darling when neither of us know what it says, who at melbourne looked at it if anyone at all, what they know about psych testing etc is far fetched.

I'll say it again: the best single predictor for performance in a job - any job - is IQ. IQ + relevant personality predicts more about job performance than other measure - including interviews, bio-data, job trials, assessment centres etc. This is settled. No-one is arguing.

I have faith in Jimmy T. More than i do in Trengove.

Doesnt the mfc evaluate the mental side of a player when making a selection at the draft?

It seems to me to be a continuing problem at the club and amongst our playersor is the the club enviorement that effects players mentally

The simple answer is that I don't know. I know that certain tests are used and made available AFL-wide after draft camp. I have no idea what the MFC makes of the data, whether they mine it for more info etc. The other important point is that I have no evidence as to whether the data is a useful predictor of long-term performance - it might well be but that is a bit harder to find. Certainly there is nothing published.

The better question from my point of view if whether the MFC know what their environment is like and what types generally flourish under it?

I saw enough of Toumpas last year to know he can seriously play. My concern is his mental fragility. If he currently does't get a touch in the first 10 minutes he seems to mount pressure on himself and then just run around without purpose. Even his interview post Geelong game showed he was greatful to be out there rather than knowing he belongs like Viney, Wines interviews I have seen. He stated he was overawed by some of the Swans players whereas Viney just tries to kill whoever is in front of him. For this reason I see benefit to playing him through Casey until he believes his form deserves to see him on this stage. Once he gets his confidence right and a full preseason I have no doubt he will be a very good player.

THIS+++

The change = maturity. It will take time. He's got the physical/footy skill set. Needs the mental side. I'm very confident he'll get it.

Toumpas will become a decent AFL player, but already there are signs he's not going to become a gun AFL mid, which is what you want from a top 5 draft pick. Rarely have I seen a young top-performed junior seem so uncertain of himself and out of his depth. He's admitted that he's struggled to adjust to AFL footy. He's neat and will be far better as he matures and plays in a decent team, but I struggle to see any "star factor" with Toumpas. He's the type of player that will do well as a linkman in a chain of disposals, but I've seen nothing to suggest he can initiate play. The best AFL mids are the architects, they're the drivers that set up play and initiate proceedings, but Jimmy seems an over the top hand ball receive kind of guy, who then delivers it nicely.

Supporters will say, but he's only 19 and hasn't played much footy, etc. Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious. Jimmy may become what we all hope, but the best young mids usually show what they'll become even when they starting out on their fledgling careers. I've seen enough star mids start out in my lifetime to at least have some early concerns regarding Toumpas and what he brings to the table.

I've seen him present well in defense and try to start or engineer play.

HOWEVER it is clear that he is a pretty emotional guy. It will take him time to stop feeling pressure and relax into the roll. I'd guess that we'll see a steady improvement for 1-3 years and then a marked improvement 4-6 years from now. Like Garland. The problem with emotional types is that they make decisions when 'emotional'. Too much emotion = not great decisions. Not necessarily evident as a junior because the environment = less demanding.

And yes, all of this is evident on testing and tests are made available to afl clubs post draft camp.

The only stats that count are the scoreboard. Our midfield is getting killed week in week out by every other team. Yes they get their 20 touches a game unfortunately their opponents are racking up 30-50 touches a game. How many midfield players for melbourne have racked up 30 possessions this year? Just because the ball goes into the forward 50 does not mean the midfield is delivering it, a lot of time our forwards have to go back to try to get it down field when they do Dawes or Fitzy are outnumbered. Of the inside 50's how many actually went to our team members advantage as opposed to kicking it blindly straight down the oppositions players throats. lastly as pointed out so ably by others our turn overs which often is the midfield are killing us. Yesterday Trengrove for example got his 20 touches and a lot of tackles, but he turned it over multiple times he was credited with 5 clangers by the Heraldsun, i think they may have been generous to him, Dunn had 4 clangers out of 16 possessions. If you compared each midfielder to their opposition yesterday did any of our midfielders actually win out?

I like that you start off saying that the only stats that matter are the scoreboard and then argued a few points using stats to support your argument.

If you'd finished that off by confirming that 'stats are useless', i think it would have been the perfect post - where the introduction and the conclusion were passionately ignored by the majority of content.

statistics are like bikinis. what they reveal is suggestive but what they conceal is vital

That is awful. Please no more.

Not a bad summary. Pretty much on board with that except for the bolded part. There's no eveidence to support this. If there was , point 1 wouldn't have arisen.

I think the previous board did a lot that was very good and a few things that did not work. CEO's and money making were things that they struggled with in a difficult environment. The current group are better at the moneymaking but worse at executive control, they leak like a seive and suck at being responsible.

Well looks like the AFL Package is about to be announced and from reading this Craig seems to be on the outer and if Roos won't take the job it's Eade or Williams.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/25m-to-help-dees-get-house-in-order-20130715-2q0a6.html

The bail-out package will be used to partly fund the payouts of sacked senior coach Mark Neeld, worth nearly $600,000, former chief executive Cameron Schwab and former football manager Chris Connolly.

Interim coach Neil Craig could also fall into this category should he be overlooked for the top job and not be required elsewhere at the club. He has a year to run on his contract.

The money could also be used to help lure a high-profile senior coach, such as Paul Roos, and an experienced football department boss.

What a joke that we have to get the AFL to fund the payout of Neeld, Schwab and Connolly, I guess they are all gone because the AFL wanted them gone.

How did the club get in this mess.

A few easy steps. Note that this is guesswork and a lot of filling in the blanks with "wot I rekon..."

1. AFL agitate for change and encourage Jimmy to form a board and run.

2. Jim convinced by AFL and G Lyon that club is in strife and thinks he can save it; gathers board;

3. AFL and Jim persuade incumbent board to leave; they do; smooth handover;

4. AFL encourage Jim to appoint CS;

5. Board fail to understand difference between watching/judging versus doing - so jim is getting involved in decisions at the club as well as evaluating how the decisions get made;

6. Jim gets too sick to then do his job and no-one replaces him...the board fiddle while the FD begins to burn;

7. 186 + gary lyon + sick Jim = bad decision making that gets entrenched in context of dying Jim and jock-sniffing board;

8. Neeld appointed by shocking process that lacks any integrity; board rubber stamp GL's decision;

9. Ongoing failure of board to evualute schwab, or monitor FD progress etc.

10. Players ruined by MN; Board watching helplessly;

Or in simple terms, we replaced a board of good decision makers with bad decision makers lead by a charismatic, physically compromised leader. The AFL helped agitate for much of this behind closed doors. This is as much their mess as it is ours.

The "respectful" part is important as is the need to get our recruiting strategies up to speed where they've been poor in the past. Incidentally, you improve your list not only by trading but also by recruiting free agents and drafting new players. Then, as pointed out above, you need to develop what you have.

Whilst I think we did well from our overall recruiting last year, I didn't like the way many players were kept in a limbo in the lead up to the free agency/trade period. That plus the effects of the long running tanking saga and ultimately Neeld's poor handling of the team contributed to the disastrous collapse of confidence among the playing group at the start of the season.

I'd like to believe that our new recruiting chief Jason Taylor has plans in place and is already working on a programme to get us the best recruits, particularly in the midfield. The focus should be firstly on targeting players that fit our needs (I hope Adams is considered as one of them) and then working on who might be put on the trade table if and when the time comes to make deals. But you don't throw the baby out with the bath water by allowing players to feel unwanted by prematurely enabling the speculation to begin. I'm sure Taylor has also been looking at the availability of the list of free agents and the best under 18 and more mature players in the state leagues. The club should also be pushing the agenda of trade/draft assistance because as long as we're being thrashed on a weekly basis, we're harming the competition's bottom line.

So it's not all trades and yes, we need to be more respectful of those on the playing list if we're to develop a successful culture. The Chris Johnson/James McDonald/Brad Miller/Cameron Bruce departure scenarios need to be made a thing of the past.

I'm really not sure who you are arguing with Jack.

Nowhere have I argued that the players should be treated poorly. I've already argued about man management at Melbourne. I've written about the need to psych test applicants so that the right qualities (EQ and related ) get selected for with multiple lines of evidence for their existence. I've argued about how Jim dismissed Bailey; or how Neeld treated players; or how the board treated players. I wrote letters to Mark Neeld in his first and second years stressing the need to not lose the players while still instituting what needed to be done to help them grow a collective spine.

Do you reckon that I'd abandon all of that to chase player candy?

Do you think that anyone who reads these boards really doesn't care about player treatment given everything we've seen?

We are coming off a long period of time in which the club has come under considerable criticism about the way it treats its favourite sons. It goes back to the Daniher period, continued under Dean Bailey and Mark Neeld and is thought by some to have had a negative impact on the playing group over the past few years.

Sure we can speculate on what we have to give away to get the draft picks/midfielders we so desperately need but let's also take care with our people and not look upon them as cattle to be done away with when it suits. That's the attitude that contributes to allegations of a poor culture that's wracked our club over the past three years. We need to be better than that.

I agree completely.

So tell me how me get a midfield without trading? Tell me what we should do with five marking forwards when we can only accommodate three? Where is the loyalty is keeping blokes as spare parts rather than doing something that furthers their career and the club at the same time?

Sure, let's not treat players like cattle. i think a happy balance can be struck between the mechanical thinking and respectful treatment.

I love the idea of speccies. Let's get Jurrah back. He can do that.

We need to win games. A better midfield will win us games. How do we get a better midfield? We trade what we have surplus of. Howe is surplus. He isn't a mid and I bet he'd get defended out of big contests. Bodying him takes him out and he is not very useful when the ball hits the ground.

I want to win games. We need a midfield. We do not need Howe. We need three midfielders and two decent crumbers. Howe is not any of these things.

I do not want to lose him. Where are the better options? Who else gets us what we want?

I seem to recall Howe was praised by many on here early on in his career (lol, what was that like a season and a half ago?) for his defensive efforts. I haven't had the chance to attend recent games because of work, but has he perhaps been given more of a licence to be an attacking player since the departure of Neeld?

I wouldn't be so flippant about moving Howe on as he is quite clearly in our most talented handful of players. We should be adding to the talent we have, not trading one out and one in. It's also interesting to note that his 3 best games were also in some of our heaviest defeats against Essendon, Gold Coast and Fremantle. Not sure if that means a whole lot. No doubt he needs to work on consistency and bridge the gap between his best and worst. He is a must keep for mine.

Postscript, he is also leading our goal kicker this year at 20, with our next closet on 11. Not bad for a high half forward who has spent most of his time up the ground this season. While he is not your typical crumbing forward, he is still quite adept when the ball is on the ground.

What's flippant? We have 5 marking forwards next year. Five. We need mids. Howe is not a mid; what he does can be done by others; he cannot do what we need him to do up the ground.

His defensive efforts on saturday night were poor IMO. Loose doggies players had to be pointed out to him several times - he just sorta stood around looking vague and frankly unaware of what was required and the state of the game. When Clisby is telling him where to run then that says that his head goes a wandering.

He might well be leading our goalkicking but who else has played forward? Clark has been out; Dawes out; hogan prevented; fitzpatrick earning it and Watts playing back mostly. He's had more opportunity than most - good that he has made something of it.

He has worth - we might as well use it when we can. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to trade him. I just think he is an option that other teams would go for and it would be a win win. Best type of deal.

No way...

Hi rjay.

I'd do it because Howe doesn't look like he is developing much as a mid, doesn't play back well because his attention and manning up sucks and will be one of five marking forwards next year. He doesn't play the crumbling role at all and fades out of games completely.

His speccies are good but I'd trade the odd speccy for a good mid without feeling much regret.

Jamar is worthless at the trade table.

If we wanted Tay Adams, GWS would be asking for Frawley, Garland or Howe.

No chance.

I'd do it for Howe in a heartbeat

lol

Interesting analogy.

I have made a similar point and I agree with what you say but the enviroment of hiring a new coach has changed - we cannot interview anyone contracted elsewhere until their season has finished.

This really gives Jackson the leg-room to delay until the end of the season and that means that Roos has time to make a decision.

Maybe he just realises that? And that is why he isn't considering it at the moment?

It's all supposition...but I agree with you and Craig; passion is pre-requisite for a coach.

I don't want to be Blight-ed.

Especially if it involves Grant Thomas taking over as caretaker, being involved in the process for his successor and effectively selecting himself...

But our thomas is neil craig and I'm willing to be that there is a fair character difference in there...

Maybe Jackson is giving leg room. He has to Craig. Craig has the anger, energy and good history of performance. Does he have the EQ? Does he have the footy cred to win the players?

He has been with them for the last 18 months.

The more time goes, the more Craig could find that his determination and 'want' are matched by a clarity of purpose - which to this point he can not have had as he was Neeld's support. I reckon Neil burns for a chance to do it again - to prove a few blokes wrong and to climb the mountain. He loves footy, is a footy person and is at the base of the biggest mountain in AFL. I reckon the size of the challenge and the chance to tell everything (time, fate, the media) to [censored] off and watch this resurrection will seduce him.

My bet is that he will coach us next year because he'll know he wants it and the players will fall for the harness + care that he brings.

I'm intrigued, Tim. Would your view on Roos have been different had he publicly accepted already?

See, I think it could all still be smoke and mirrors. We've really no idea what's going on behind the scenes here. For argument's sake, Roos may well have accepted as soon as Jackson approached him. Jackson may not be keen on having a dead chook sitting in the coaches chair for the next 10 weeks and so has decided to hold off on declaring Roos coach until after the new board and president are officially unveiled.

I'm putting this out there because I too have a slight reservation about Roos' commitment. It may well have been put to rest had he come out straight away and said I'll take the job. Ultimately though, we can't possibly know his inner workings at this stage.

Hi Adam - sorry I missed your reply.

My opinion would change based on observed behaviour - I'd hope that relevant information would influence every decision I make!

As for Roos, I'd be less concerned, but not happy.

After all the eff ups we've made, I need to see a hall of lot to believe.

I've said my piece about Roos. From afar, I think he is a 'bloods' man and he has no drive for us. That is ok - if the Dees dropped out of the competition I would not follow AFL. I get it.

I guess we'll see how it plays out...

Have I said that I hate this?

Ross Lyon sounds like he's asleep half the time. He is the least passionate looking human being I have ever seen. He quite literally seems bored to death, and when I listen to him talk I often find myself drifting off to sleep.

Ross Lyon is also a gun coach, and learnt from Roos.

Don't mistake his demeanour in the media for what he really is.

Roos would never move his entire family and sacrifice his personal life unless he was truly passionate about the idea of coaching us. Which is why, if he signs on, I'd be thrilled and not have a single worry in my mind that he's primed for the job.

He also wouldn't be signed for anything less than 4-5 years IMO.

If all that was motivating him was money, he'd have already signed on the dotted line.

Ross lyon has already demonstrated a commitment to more than one club. Roos has not. Lyon has demonstrated a willingness to move away from the club he loved. Roos has not.

Don't take one thing in isolation. Add them up. He loved the Swans. Played there ages. Coached there. Wanted by the players there. Left, burnt out and appears to not want to coach again. Appears on TV with...variable analysis regularly - as if he is not paying attention. Why? Perhaps because life is easy and that is how he wants it?

Compare that to Lyon - coached at several clubs, shown the ability and want to bond with (and shape) different groups, actively pursued opportunities. Ruthless, competitive, hard in how he operates. Just on their observed behaviour, Lyon is more driven, passionate and competitive.

Now let us be REALLY clear that all we have to make decisions off is observed behaviour. Who actually sounds like they want the job? Who behaves as if they love coaching and could transfer their emotionality to bond with a damaged group? Sure Roos is smart and can coach. Who cares? Beyond that basic application criteria, what are key characteristics? Does he want it and is he motivated to do the work - the emotional, interpersonal work - of a senior coach? We all saw Neeld butcher his initial bonding with the group. We want someone keen to get in there with them and lead them in equal measure. So who comes across as someone who wants to do that?

I've seen and heard nothing positive re: Roos on that front at all. Now, I'm sure I have less than 1% of the relevant info. So , as we all assess applicants, keep in mind what qualities they must have. Caring and leading are two and to do them you must be competitive and engaged. If Roos shows that, then great. Right now he's shown squat and 'Land sounds desperate - like a nerdy kids hoping for a look in with the school hottie, ignoring that the school hottie is, well, just not that into us.

You don't think Roos is competitive enough? Played more games than most players in history and broke the longest premiership drought in league history as coach. So we're probably not going to agree on this. He's certainly not the certifiable nut job Blight is so don't worry that he will completely lose the plot and flake out on us.

Williams is my next preference, so I'm fine with that. Craig on the other hand - no way.

No I don't think he is competitive enough, and if he is, he sounds uninterested in coaching generally and in us particularly.

I'm not concerned that he is mad but rather that when things get tough he will just leave - sign on for two years, get paid heaps, do an ok job and wonder off. His commentary about footy is largely uninspiring and I wonder really how much attention he actually pays.

He has a very good record at a very good club. I think he loves that club more than anything. He competes for that club. Mathews, Williams, Eade, Craig have all shown a love for the game and a passion for footy people and players for a long time and to a greater degree across situations/clubs.

Again, if it is passion that is necessary (but not sufficient) I just do not see it in Roos at all. I see irritation and he sounds tired all the time.

Out of interest, why not Craig?

It may have been mentioned amongst the 14,000 Paul Roos posts, but Leigh Matthews turned down the Brisbane job several times before he finally relented. Turned out ok.

So?

Leigh is a competitive animal - with the emphasis on animal. Is Roos?

I'm not convinced he is. He played for Sydney and then coached them. I think his passion lies in that club. Not the game, not coaching, not us.

Matthews is competitive generally.

I think they are different on this dimension.

The more I think about it the more I want Williams or Craig only.

I think that the change in strategy I was talking about concerned the appointment of staff. For some time, the MFC have not appointed people on the basis of them being the best. Maybe we need someone else to do that - like a consultancy.

I'm very uncomfortable with a takeover but I'm conscious we've got it wrong a lot and I don't know how to do it right.

Wasn't that sponsorship team assembled after we lost those sponsors and as a direct result of the losses?

If true, this article really makes me angry.

Do the marketing and business people on the Board, like Howcroft, take an interest in major sponsorships? I am not talking about interfering with staff, but rather knowing what is going on and offering assistance where possible. If not why not?

If not, maybe they should sign their resignation forms.

I don't know about how the sponsorship team was assembled. But it sounds pretty amazing and I've seen other posters remark that De La Rue can be hard to deal with - but hell, I just don't know!

I'll add that to a very long list that, disturbingly, is getting longer and longer...

I'm stuffed if i know what the board does. Maybe Howcroft does get involved in the marketing stuff. Maybe the Board-led review of itself will release its findings?

Agree. Unlike Jamar, this bloke can actually move.

His 1%'s were IMO sensational. He is still learning and his effort was first class.

And I'm not upset about the bump - in finals, the instinct to hurt blokes and remove them from the contest is what we want.

He also indicated that appointing the two Jacks was a mistake, and that there is no one on our list like Hodge who leads both on and off the field.

Also said that the club would no longer leak like a sieve to the media - used the example of no one knowing Neeld was being fired on Monday as the example.

Very, very impressive interview.

DA, I heard him at the MBC breakfast and he said there that appointing the two jacks was the right decision, but, that it was the right decision was the problem - they should not need to be in that position.

Spencer is gone for at least a couple and that is a shame as that was easily the best I have seen him play.

I thought he did really well - used the ball, marked it, beat mcEvoy physically, involved himself and won possessions, applied pressure, chased, tackled (or tried to). Easily the most involved performance from ruckman at MFC that I have seen this year - not the best, but the most involved.

I'd be cautious before believing everything in the article. Having been at the recent MBC breakfast and hearing how the sponsorship team (assembled under cam schwab) tries to create synergistic relationships between sponsors, I'd be wary about believing that Schwab acted in a blantantly stupid way to annoy one of our only sponsors. The whole thing sounds paranoid and far-fetched to me.