Nasher

That's precisely why, but unfortunately we can't call the club soft and blame it on 50 years of poor culture for that.

Indeed. I thought we passed on Darling because he was a naughty boy off the field. Oh wait - we've recruited heaps of naughty boys before and a few of them are still on the list? No no no, we've got it all wrong - what Rangey meant was being a hard-nosed, win at all costs type whatever. *nod* Yep, that's what he said.

A 10m foot race would be much more relevant and probably much more telling.

The answer as to who is to blame for Travis Johnstone's failure to capitalise on his talent is Travis Johnstone.

That play where Clark stood up, broke through two would-be tacklers and handballed off the gimme goal to Sellar warmed my heart. A big man doing big man stuff in the forward line is something we haven't seen since Schwarz and Neitz.

That's the way is happened if you take it at face value. If you're a great big conspiracy theorist, it's that Riley already had the Carlton job sewn up and acted as a double agent. I take it at face value (because of lack of evidence to the contrary) - I'm expecting to be told by stmj that I don't get it and that all the real thinkers understand what really happened.

Billy, you're preaching to the converted - I couldn't agree more with every word you've said there. My comment was based purely from the words I read from Robbie: That's talking absolutes - coach "instructing" the recruiter - as distinct from the coach and the recruiter having a discussion and being on the same page. I actually don't think Robbie's point (the coach should not veto the recruiter) and your point (the coach and the recruiter should have a strong working relationship) are at odds with one another at all - it just seems to me you're both missing each other's points. And I actually agree with both points.

Cox et al are the exceptions rather than the rule. The fact is that most of the game's stars came from very early picks. And I'm very much uninterested in participating in the development versus recruitment argument - you and B_H can knock yourselves out with that in the other thread.

J_T, I don't mean to speak on Robbie's behalf, but I don't think he's saying the coach shouldn't have input (I certainly believe the coach should have a say), his issue lies with the coach having absolute power of veto when it's outside his area of expertise. That's my take on it, anyway.

Weird. Can't see how the Demon Shop is doing anything other than right by the customers in this case.

I don't think I agree with that. You're less likely to get a player of real influence with late picks - it's the early picks that have the biggest impact on the club's on field fortune. Our misuse of these through the 00's is a huge part of why we suck now.

If you mean me, I have no problem with speculation. I have a problem with derogatory speculation presented as fact.

I know it was only one game, but it was a full season of internal conflict for me.

No worries here either. The back half has been in more trouble than the early settlers and I think it's held up okay under the conditions. Some midfield pressure will help Frawley and co significantly,

I strongly supported it in 2009, but it was a massive emotional drain that I still haven't recovered from. I couldn't support it again I don't think. Plus I don't think there's any need. Just like in 2008, I think we're about bad enough to lose enough games on merit anyway.

I have always found kicking got harder as I got more tired - and I got tired after one sprint. I don't know how that translates to the elite level, but the reasoning is at least plausible even if it's not the full story.

I don't see why career advancement or just greener pastures is any less plausible a reason. As I said, I don't know, and neither do you or Rangey, so I get agitated when you present your speculation as if it's fact. That's how false rumours start and it makes me grumpy. The other thing that makes me grumpy is your implication is that you're a thinker and I'm not, but no doubt you went for that effect on purpose, so I'll just ignore you on that one.

I pressed "like this", because it's the closest thing to "dislike this" that there is.

In what way was he a "leader"? I think you're stuck in the perception everyone had of him in his first few years.

Opposition analysts have been around forever. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what Barry did before we gave him the recruiting gig.

You're making the incorrect assumption that I have an opinion on this matter one way or the other. All I'm saying is I think it's poor form (at best) to spread dirt when you're without any facts other than "reading between the lines", which for me is just a synonym for "guessing".

I don't know what Rhino said at the time, but if it'd been me I'd have had a go at you for casting aspersions for the sake of idle gossip when you wouldn't have a damn clue one way or the other.

A little off topic, I guess, but I'd argue that we need midfielders more than anything. Class ones.

I've played very little of the game so I'm clearly much less qualified to say (), but I agree with yours and dc's assessment of it.

It's been burned in my mind for years that Cameron basically said without saying that he took Molan because Daniher said so - but it was a long time ago now and I don't have any proof. As for the rest of the players we took that year... Interesting that we weren't the only club to bomb out that year. North's picks were David Hale at 7, Ashley Watson at 14, Rod Crowe at 30, Ben Robbins at 54, Re-drafted Mick Martyn at 61 and took Hugh Foott at 80. Collingwood hit the jackpot with Dane Swan at 58, but they took Richard Cole, Tom Davidson and Mark McGough before him. Wow. Meaningless in the context of our recruiting, but it proves that even the superest of drafts, plenty of clubs pick up plenty of duds. Just a shame we happened to be one of them.