Slartibartfast

Fan, on 11 Dec 2012 - 11:58, said: I'm on record of being in total support of just about all list management decisions this year and whilst I disagree with some ... My only major regret in that lot is Gysberts and to a lesser degree Rivers, but I'm glad he has a chance to play meaningful footy after 6 years of crud.

Just as Prendergast was judged on the performance of the players he selected I think the FD can be judged on the performance of the players they rejected. It's not all encompassing but it's an indicator. How would you feel if his selection do wonderfully and his rejects do nothing? I'd feel good. If it was the opposite I'll feel bad. One will reflected well and the other poorly. I also fully accept that players can thrive in one environment and fail in another so that must be taken into account. The point I was trying to make, besides bring down the club with my political agenda by raising this point, was that we are in a unique position to do this given that only two of the PL players we delisted/traded/FA (excluding those that retired and Jurrah) were not picked up. And I also don't agree that the only reliable measure is win loss ratio. I think the draw, injuries and other factors influence this. Dandy I'm not going to play your game but I'm happy to debate by PM. I note to date you've not taken that option so spare us all this petty stalking and name calling. As Binman has shown, it can be done.

Sorry Maurie I missed this. Of that list I think 6 or 7 have played at other clubs. We delisted 12 from our PL (I think). 2 retired 2 left for FA but we didn't fight for them. 1 was a reasonably unique situation in Jurrah. Of the remaining only 2 didn't get another go at another club (Bate and Cook). I haven't got time at the moment but have a look at Richmond who made 11 changes. How many of their players were given second opportunities. I support the changes but it does give a reasonably unique opportunity to evaluate our decisions.

Oh for heavens sake's. I started in my first line of the OP saying I supported what Neeld has done and it was much better than Bailey. I've said that a number of times. I wouldn't change any list management decision he's made. I've already praised Neeld and you say you can't see me coming on DL and saying it's proof of Neeld's sound decision making. Sorry, I've already done it! And now is NOT the time to judge whether we've made the right moves, the future will tell us that. That we largely agree is to say our judgement is the same, not that it's good. I rate Gysberts, Neeld doesn't, the future will tell. I'd back Neeld by the way but I'll stay true to what I believe. And I'm not setting up a criteria to bag Neeld, I'm setting up a criteria to evaluate his performance. I'll praise Neeld if I think he does something well and criticise if I think he does something bad and I'll apply the same principle to the whole club. I reckon you're better than falling for this agenda stuff. Dandy if you want me to answer some questions send me a PM. I'm not going to bore others or ruin this thread by derailing it with political agendas.

I want more. I want to win a flag and to do that we will need very good people in all positions particularly seeing we don't have the resources of many. Are you surprised that three of the richest clubs, Adelaide, Collingwood and WC always seem to be developing quickly or in finals with fewer early picks than us? Neeld needs to be able to identify and develop the talent that was both left to him and he has selected. If he can't do that he fails an important coaching duty. I don't care if you can't see this. I think others probably can.

It's a simplistic view that will suit many. It avoids the harder question of trying to evaluate performance of key individuals in the club. Winning football games among other things is the ability to identify and nurture talent. You don't get the pick of the list of draftees each year you only get your hands on a very small sample. You need to make the very most of the talent you lay your hands on. I don't worry about how the discards go for their own sake but I am interested in their performance in as much as it allows an evaluation of Neeld as an identifier and developer of talent. We are an under resourced club, we have to make every post a winner. Our recruiting department is not as well resourced as other clubs and the only way we will win is by having better intellectual property. A coach is judged on many things. His ability to lead and inspire, his gameplan, his tactical nous, his management of players, team selection and other things. One of the most important characteristics is his ability to get the best out of the talent at his disposal. I understand it's Christmas, we've got a whole new bunch of presents under the tree and we hold great hopes for what's in them. It's fantastic there is such support for the club after such a shocking year. But that doesn't mean we should stop looking at ways to evaluate performance. If in three years we finish 4th and Gysberts is a recognized gun mid and Morton and Bennell are good players in a winning GF team Neeld's decisions will be in question. I don't think this will happen but the point I'm trying to make, amongst others, is we are in a rare position to judge seeing so many other clubs see a position for what we have discarded.

The list he is building is as much a product of the players he lets go as the ones he brings in. 5 years is far too long. For me it starts in next year and we need to see very significant improvements.

Yes, I sort of agree, but how do you judge him on list management and player judgement then? I don't know where to find the information but 7 players off our list who we didn't want are rated high enough by other clubs to be given another go or sort after. That must be a record. I think that is interesting. Clubs don't take players on unless they think they can play a role and be AFL players. It will be interesting to see.

And what if she's right? What if it was the AFL opinion then but our threat to take the AFL to court has forced a differing position. What does it matter if it's wrong? You wouldn't read many journo's who said something wrong. If the club being investigated was Carlton and not Melbourne would you have felt the same way? The only thing that I'm interested in is what the AFL now does and she's the only one that will give me an insight.

I think any finishing position would need to be "draw adjusted". Our's couldn't be easier.

But she is the one reporting the facts and that is what I read her for. I couldn't give a stuff about the other stuff. If you want to get upset at a journo's view that up to you. If it was Carlton being investigated I bet you'd applaud her calling them "pathetic and disgusting..." Toughen up Dandy.

I see where you are coming from but the FD job is to identify talent and develop it. If other clubs can routinely do this with our rejects I'd think that's a worry. FWIW I can't see that happening but it will be interesting to observe.

Each to their own.

I can see that every effort is being made to change things. I'm just not expecting big changes next year on the back of our recruiting because the potential is all youth based. One isn't even playing until next year. Last year we weren't even competitive. We've got to make up that deficit and more to start winning games.

Seems to me you're more worried about what Wilson thinks than the AFL. I'm not and the silence isn't giving me any comfort.

Rubbish. We know about the investigative tactics, we know the meeting that is at the centre of the investigation, we know what Connolly was supposed to have said, we know that the main players have been interviewed multiple times, we know the general nature of the MFC position and if I cared to go back and read her articles again there would be much more. We also know her opinion. I'm not worried about that because I'm not spooked by the journalist. If our club can't survive one negative journalist we really are stuffed. I've found myself wondering what going on since her last series of articles and nobody can provide anything. I'm looking forward to her next article, not because of the slant she'll put on it but because of the information it may contain.

Yes I do and I think you were right. It also didn't help that the players we thought would develop in that era never did - Sylvia, McLean, Dunn, Bate, Bell,,,,,,,,,, It doesn't matter if one or two of those players have good careers at other clubs either, it will just be interesting. If more than 2 do then you'd have to question Neeld's judgement. I don't count Rivers in that.

Some time ago I did the figures and they had a very young list with a small (by AFL standards) number of games. I think they probably feel they have enough talented youth on their list and want to bolster it with some experience. It's pretty much what we did with Byrnes, Rodan, Petersen, Jones and to a lesser degree Terlich.Anything but finals for them in 2013 would be unacceptable.

It's not Wilson's fault we are where we are, it's ours. She is reporting on it and I want to know what's going on. She's the only one who is shedding any light on it. She is also only reporting what she knows, not what the AFL knows which is a point I think many miss and really the only thing that matters. If Wilson doesn't report it doesn't mean it's not being investigated and if Wilson does report it doesn't mean the AFL agree with her position. I'm not spooked by Wilson at all. She's just a journalist. She clearly doesn't like us but so what. I'm much more worried about what the AFL think. It's important to try and separate the wheat from the chaff with Caro and it's why I like her articles.

I'm on record of being in total support of just about all list management decisions this year and whilst I disagree with some I'm please that Neeld has made these decisions and is backing his judgement. It's something I think didn't happen enough under Bailey. Next year will be fascinating because we will be able to judge Neeld's judgement as we will have so many of our past players playing for other clubs. To my knowledge the following are in action: Morton WC Bennell WC Gysberts NM Martin Bris Moloney Bris Petterd Rich Rivers Geel It must almost be a record for a club to have so many players playing at other clubs in the following year. My only major regret in that lot is Gysberts and to a lesser degree Rivers, but I'm glad he has a chance to play meaningful footy after 6 years of crud.

Let's hope he doesn't play like a headless chook! (GOT reference)

One of the reasons I think Caro is a must read is at least she has contacts and finds things out. We'd have a much better idea of where this was going if she was reporting it. I still think we are very exposed here and I'm comfortable that the investigation is taking as long as it is. It's allowed us to participate in the drafting and trading this year which was critical and now any draft penalties will not hurt so much. If the trade off for that ability to participate is a long investigation I'll live with it. Also the longer it goes the more it becomes a non issue. That helps. Unlike many here I'm not worried about Caro's reporting and want to here from here so I know what's going on. For the record I loved Grant Thomas too and am sorry he's gone.

I reckon he's an inside mid who will use his hands more than his feet. When I think of McKenzie I think of Daniel Cross. He's got wonderfully clean hands too and I'd like to see him as a ball finding mid rather than a tagger just to see what happened. He'll be promoted to the leadership group this year and will be one of the first picked each week.

You're very scared of the Club being questioned. Toughen up.

What is it you're so scared of? I'd hate to be in the trenches with you.