bing181

Anyone care to post what's being said?

Good post - at a trying time for us all. Not the moment for snide comments and even more insults.

I'd agree ... but equally, having 3 picks in the first round, albeit in 2012, is not to be sneezed at. Scully is, or probably will be, the better player by far, even a future megastar. If he gets there. It'll only take a bad kneed injury, a year out of footy and a loss of a yard or two to change all that. And you only have to look at Hawthorn last night - if you can get on top of one or two of their big stars, they don't look half the team. For me, I don't know that I wouldn't mind that we spread it round a bit, rather than having all our eggs in the Scully basket. We could have a gem or two with the picks we get. Hope he stays of course ...

We may be too late for Burns, he seems favourite for the Crows job: "But Burns, who has been in charge of the Eagles' developing midfield for the past three seasons, is understood to be a clear frontrunner for the job amid speculation he has already been offered a three-year deal to become Adelaide's new coach." Speaking of coaches: "Meanwhile, former Bulldogs champion Scott West appears set to return to his old club as an assistant after spending the past few years as a lieutenant to both Dean Bailey and Todd Viney at Melbourne."

I have no more idea than anyone, but I don't think it's just about the money for Tom - he's going to make enough whatever happens, and he probably realises that. I suspect it's more about how he sees himself at MFC, and whether he can make "his" way (e.g., the hyper-professionalism, the not drinking etc.) work with us. While everyone at the club speaks of him in glowing terms, and so they should, it's clear he's a little bit apart from the group and culture. Whether that's an issue for him, or the other players, or the club, I suspect we're about to find out. He might just feel that it's easier to plough his own furrow at a new club, surrounded by kids.

Even if that sweeping generalisation was true, it doesn't mean that EVERY SINGLE THING the club does is crap - which is the picture that the woebegones paint.

Interesting to note that of the players we moved along last year, none of them have been named to play for the first week of the finals: That includes Bruce, Cheney and Johnson at Hawthorn, and Simon Buckley at Collingwood. Both Cheney and Buckley are listed as emergencies, which is at least something I guess.

But thankfully we have you here to singlehandedly put us on the straight and narrow. What a hero.

As I am with typical BS responses like this. Who the F**k said they were delighted?? Talk about one-dimensional ...

Clearly. Fitzpatrick especially was like a rabbit in the headlights for much of his first game.

I have no sources, and am not going to claim otherwise (!!), but it's the impression you get. The whole coming-home-from-China-early story etc. etc. Tom is obviously very professional - perhaps too much so. He's also still very young, and you somehow get the feeling that he's not exactly "one of the boys". Not that he has to be, but probably not helping in current circumstances. Maybe he feels he'd be better off as a "senior" player amongst a bunch of kids. As for the "feeling let down" story above. I'm an another that feels that if that's the case, he's perhaps being a bit of a prima donna. If I walked out on a job every time I felt "let down" by people above me, I'd be living in a tent. If the likes of Sylvia and Trengove can see the future and are prepared to sign, how come it's only an issue for Tom??

Like the ones we have lumbering round in the two's ... Warnock and Dunn for example? Great idea, let's build a team around them and their ilk ...

FFS guys, Port at home, in front of that crowd, under those circumstances (Brogan etc.), and with a bit of wind in their sales after pretty well dominating a finals team the previous week, were always going to turn it on. Not to mention, losing Sylvia and Jurrah wasn't ideal. Sure, we didn't play all that well, though plenty of the team did OK/enough. Green and Watts going missing were probably the biggest problem, and for mine, the main reason we weren't able to convert enough up forward - we certainly got it inside 50 enough. But ... We lost for three reasons: Fitzpatrick, Blease and MacDonald. All of whom gave away (unnecessary) frees, or turnovers which directly resulted in goals, or in the case of MacDonald, were (too) easily outclassed by their opponents. Without even watching the game again, there were at least 3 goals gifted to Port through these young players' mistakes. Out of the three of them, Fitzy was the only one to lay a tackle, but then 55% of his 11 disposals didn't reach their intended target. Blease, in just over 2 quarters of footy, gave away 5 frees (more than anyone else on the field), all virtually in our back half. Westhoff (Macdonald's man unless I'm mistaken) was their leading goal-scorer. The three of them had absolute shockers - but all of them, hopefully, learned some valuable lessons going into the off-season. The price we pay. On the other hand, we do do a bit better at the draft. Which makes me wonder out loud, surely we were doing a bit of, cough cough, "long term player development". Why was MacDonald left on Westhoff all day??

Hale didn't come to us, not because he didn't want to, but because Hawthorn were prepared to give North a higher pick in exchange than we were. Simple as that. Not to mention, there were many (a majority I would say) round here who didn't want Hale at all, and saw it as yet another sign of the perceived mediocrity of Melbourne in going for another team's reject. Now suddenly it's become in your eyes a measure of our lack of ability to attract "good seasoned players". As for the "choir boy" remark ...

Yep, with you all the way. I'm constantly reminded of John Cage's wonderful phrase: "I have nothing to say, and I am saying it".

Another goal from a free ... how many?

How many goals from frees to them?

Every club in the comp let Darling slide.

.... and this from today's HUN. It's in regard to Richmond, but could equally apply to us: "The difference between ninth and 13th in ladder speak means absolutely nothing when it is all said and done, but the difference between ninth and 13th on the draft table is six spots this year due to Greater Western Sydney's involvement. In a draft in which the talent is meant to fall away dramatically after the top 15 picks, the Tigers really should consider "developing their players by exposing them to new positions on the field".

Or, cough cough, rookie one that's already in our backyard. Would get us through the next year or two until the likes of Watts, Cook, Fitzgerald and I don't know who else put on a few kgs. I know it's not what we've been doing up until now, but new broom and all that.

... and not just with Blease either. The whole team is lacking in it. So much of footy at this level is about what's going on upstairs. Well done Sam.

It's this part of the Wallace quote that grabbed my attention: "As good as recruiters are, the system is still a lottery". IOW, just because a recruiter misses out on insert-your-favourite-young-gun-here, it doesn't mean that they've done a bad job. There are too many variables. Because of that, even the best recruiters will "miss" players they could have taken at their choice - and by definition, select players that turn out to have been taken too high. What I like about Prendergast's recruiting is the likes of Nicholson and Evans, Howe, Fitzpatrick and Gawn - all lower and rookie picks who look likely. IMHO, it's the players you take outside of the first 20 or 30 who give a better indication as to whether you've done your job or not. Finally, the overall direction as to the kinds of players recruited is more at the behest of the FD. The recruiting department doesn't operate in isolation.

Given that it's doing my head in having every second thread hijacked by someone who wants to have a swipe at Barry P and the recruiting dept., I was hoping that if there was a stand-alone recruiting thread it would siphon off most of said discussion. I'll start the ball rolling with a quote from Terry Wallace on the AFL site: "Many clubs in the past have put all their eggs into the national draft basket only to come up short, as it is not a foolproof system. Dyson Heppell and Andrew Gaff both have shown that they should have been on the Suns' radar. As good as recruiters are, the system is still a lottery."

FFS, just because someone doesn't come on here calling every single player a spud and the team a farce etc. etc., it doesn't mean that they're accepting sub-par performances. And thanks for telling us all why we have forums like this.

I would have put that in "Good" myself ...