Slartibartfast

Premature, but on current indications I agree. If this list goes on and wins a flag then CAC can probably lay claim to "star" status, particularly if Newton, Buckley, Garland, Bartram, Bruce, Davey, Miller, Petterd, Rivers, Whelan, McNamara and Cheney form a significant part of it. I've included Petterd as we rated him very highly when others didn't and Rivers because few if any other recruiters saw in him what Craig did. The others are genuinely late picks and this is where the wheat is sorted from the chaff. The "star" issue is a hard one. Who do I consider genuine "stars" of the game? Hird, Buckley, Carey, McLeod, Pavlich, Judd, Reiwoldt, Brown, Voss, Harvey R, Cornes C, B Johnson and I suppose Goodes. I will have missed a few but of that lot there are not many CAC had a chance to pick. Cornes and Goodes are the only ones. I'm not sure it's fair to mark him down on that score but each to their own.

An excellent post occo, but I will take you up on one point. CAC was not solely responsible for trading (Ellis, Holland and Pickett from your examples). These would have been done with his input but the decision would have been Danihers. The failure of this discussion, as with previous discussions on CAC, is that it is absolute where it needs to be comparative. All recruiters will have their failures, that goes with the territory. What is important is to see that you have less failures than other clubs. In this regard I suspect CAC is top shelf. Melbourne has failed to produce a "star" for a long time. But this is not solely CAC's fault. There are very few "stars" in the AFL, at least in the sense most of us mean. To get them you need the opportunity, something WJ has discussed. You then need the environment in which to develop them. And finally I think there is a lot of merit in the argument that the recruiters job is easier (not easy) with early picks. I don't think it was hard to pick Morton with 4 or Grimes with 14. What is hard is to get value with later picks. CAC has been exceptional at this level which is why I think he is one of the best in the business and will be sorely missed by our club.

Wow, Chris Judd watch out! Strange indeed that 15 other clubs found about 5 or 6 players each that they took before someone as good as Valenti. Valenti is a really honest player. Courage, good hands, can find it and his disposal and vision are good. But there are reasons why he was drafted in the fourth round of the rookies. I'm pleased he's got his chance and we will all know what he is capable of because he will give it everything he has. But those that saw and followed Adam Fisher will have little doubt about the challenges Shane faces.

Agree with you Paddo. We obviously recognise his talent otherwise we wouldn't have asked him to train with us. His problem has always been attitude. He's had 4 weeks or so to show us how serious he is and the club will have been monitoring him closely. The club is in a very good position to make a call on him. If he misses it will be because he has not convinced us he's serious about playing AFL footy.

Pity I missed the interview!! And it would be interesting to know wouldn't it!! <_<

I reckon with a new coach and a fresh approach every player should start with a clean slate. Having said that I think people have short memories and tire of older players. Adem Yze is in the half dozen most skillful players I've seen at Melbourne (since about 1980). In his younger days he ran hard, won a lot of contested ball, was a dangerous player overhead (particularly forward) and had great vision and kicking skills. But as he's getting older these skills are fading. Sadly I think it's his enthusiasm for the game that has faded more than anything. He plays without hunger and urgency. He too often goes through the motions. His injury last year may have been the best thing to happen to him. He's in the last year of his contract and I'd imagine he'll be keen for another. Whether that comes and what level it's pitched will be totally determined by his output and approach this year. If he can't muster his enthusiasm for the game he's unlikely to play beyond this season at Melbourne. Statistically Yze hasn't been too bad over the last few years. But that doesn't tell the story. Many of his possessions have been "cheap". He rarely puts himself in dangerous positions anymore; he rarely works to provide options; he doesn't do much "unrewarded" running; he rarely takes a hit for the team and he doesn't always go when it's his turn. But most of all the stats don't show what he does when he doesn't have the ball. And that is where he fails most. This will be an interesting year for many reasons and for many players. Adem Yze's story will be one of the more interesting ones.

Number 1 would be James McDonald. He was taken at 78 in the rookie draft. 2 club B&F's, AA and 197 games later I reckon he wins hands down,

Well done. Goodes was taken at 43 but he was taken as a 17 year old at a time when only one 17 year old was available to each club in the draft. We had already taken Travis Johnstone. So he wasn't available to us like so many. And lets not change your point. Your words were: "Craig has probably got it right over the last couple of years, BUT 11 years in charge of recruiting and still Melbourne are absolutely starless." We are starless in the 11 years, you'll get no argument from me there. But you linked CAC and the fact that we are starless and then went on to list those we'd "missed". You were wrong and your criticism was sadly misplaced.

Sleeve call me Baghdad Bob all you like. I doubt many can remember him and even fewer care. And if you want to add credibility to your post attacking the messenger will not do so but it will reinforce the weakness of your proposition. You listed "stars" by club. They were of your choosing. I merely pointed out that the vast majority you listed were never available to the MFC for CAC to draft. I suggest that shows the stupidity of your argument. You also seem to hold him accountable for the period he wasn't at the club. Strange indeed. Or are you suggesting that in addition to recruiting the players to the club he is also responsible for their development. If you are you are wrong. I have no problem with CAC's performance being analyzed, it's an important and necessary part of any ongoing management of the footy department. Fortunately management will do the analysis based on facts whereas you have questioned his competence based on a false premise. Or perhaps you just can't see that.

It's a fair comment that we haven't had a "star" at Melbourne in a long time, but they are not easy to come by. Sleeve's list is interesting. Brisbane: Brown, Voss, Akermanis, Lynch and Leppa were never available to CAC. Black was missed in 1997, so too was Power but I don't rate him a star. Collingwood: Both Buckley and Pendlebury were never available to us. WC: Judd, Cousins and Glass never available to us. Cox available to everyone (rookie), Kerr missed for Scott Thompson. Adelaide: McLeod and Roo never available to us. Sydney: Goodes not available to us and Hall not available to CAC. PA: Cornes available but we took TJ. Shaun Burgoyne never available to us. Freo: Pav never available to us. Essendon: Hird not in CAC's time, Lloyd and Lucas not available. Geelong: Scarlett, Ablett, Bartel and Selwood never available. Saints: Harvey pre CAC, Reiwoldt never available, Del Santo missed. Kangaroos: Harvey.. pre CAC Hawks: Crawford pre CAC, Franklin and Hodge never available. So in 10 years 4 players could be considered "missed". If you're going to have a crack at CAC at least get the facts right.

You seem to know what you're talking about Wheels. Thanks for the input!!

Oh shyte, another Mama's and Papa's CD leaves the Redleg household!

Got an old Peter Paul and Mary CD at home your wife won't let you listen to Redleg?? I'll go 142, but I think I'm Blowin in the Wind.

He is right. As I understand it the AFL hands out about $90 million to the clubs under various different guises. Of this about $5 million is called "special assistance" and we receive some of this. But if you look at the total amount of money handed out to the clubs by the AFL and take away the guise under which it is given we get about the same as most clubs. I'll see if I can find the figures which I saw for 2006. I've not seen 2007 figures. The concept that Melbourne live off the special assistance of the AFL and that that money is in addition to the amounts other clubs get is erroneous.

Interesting. I reckon that Dunn and Frawley will be players although I'm not sure Dunn will be a KPP. If they are then it shows that CAC is infact very good at selecting talls as he is seeing something that others aren't. These are the "talls" taken 1st round (I've used top 16) since 2000. There are a fair few that would be considered "disappointing or failures" given the expectations placed on a first round pick. 2000: Reiwoldt, Koschitzke, Livingstone, McDougall, Angwin, 2001: Polak, Hale, Molan, Brooks 2002: J Brennan, Walsh, McIntosh, Laycock, Schulz, Smith, Gilham 2003: Bradley, Murphy, Watts, Chaplin 2004: Roughead, Franklin, Williams, Meesen, Dunn, Pattison 2005: Kennedy, Dowler, Ryder, Clark 2006: Gumbleton, Hansen, Leuenberger, Thorp, Reid, Brown, Everitt, Frawley, Riewoldt, Sellar, Hampson It's probably too early to tell with 2005 and 2006 but there are a fair few failures in there. It supports the theory that you pick mids early and only go for talls if they are a sure thing. It's why I don't want a tall with pick 4.

Storm in a teacup guys. I was just feeding off your use of the word "shades" Jaded. No offense intended and apologies if anyone took any. For what it's worth I tend to agree with H and I get a bit sick of political correctness.

What? His colour? Sampi has everything to prove, Byron had nothing. Sampi will cost very little in salary, Bryon cost a lot. Sampi has a long term future, Byron didn't. We had high expectations of Byron who didn't deliver. We don't have those expectations with Sampi. Sampi is a completely different proposition.

I'm in Hannabal's and Redleg's camp. I'd look at him. First thing to do is to identify his problems and see if we have the ability to deal with them. Remember, we have a completely different looking footy department this year. We've got two development coaches and an innovations coach to assist our three assistant coaches and senior coach. That's a lot more resource than last year and we've put this structure in place to help us deal with and develop players. The second thing to do is to determine what we pay for him (not money, which pick). In a thin draft I'd spend one of our later picks on him if he passes the "we can deal with it" issue. He's a very talented footballer.

As much as it would be nice it's laughable to suggest that a football club should be sanctioned for the criminal behaviour of it's President. Carlton have done nothing wrong (in relation to price fixing). Should Pratt be President of a footy club? Poker machine gaming license aside, that is a question for Carlton and the AFL and the answer is clearly "no". But the AFL have dropped the ball in recent times. They were party to letting Cousins play football again this year and are now beating their chest whilst holding WC responsible. What rot. It was as much the AFL's decision as WC. And now they should act against Carlton to remove Pratt as President but won't. They want his money at Carlton because whilst Pratt provides it they won't have to. Added to this is the fact that the AFL have a lawbreaker who is President of a club that tanked games to gain an advantage in the draft. Carltons punishment? Judd, Kreuzer and a fist full of dollars. Responsible? The AFL.

Yes, interesting. He was their first pick to as they traded for Tarrant. Without knowing anything about it I think the message is "keep out".

I love having the last word. Craig Cameron is not the head of the football department. I'm not sure who it was in 2001, I'd imagine Daniher or Fagan. The decision does not rest with him. Period.

Like Graz I think it has been an excellent debate. I’d like to make a couple of points: Firstly many of the players you say we missed were not really available to us. In 1997 we took Johnstone at one and traded 2 for White. We were bereft of midfielders in 97 so to take a mid was sensible. Few would argue we did badly with White. Many argue for Trav. I don’t. But having taken Travis, we never got a chance at Ottens, Croad or Cornes. They were gone by our next pick. Everyone missed Thompson in a sense as he was pick 82 and even Hawthorn passed him up 6 times before taking him with their 7th pick. You’ve marked 2000 as a fail. Thomson is as good or a better player than Petrie, Richards, Charman and Rocca. We’d delisted Pike for disciplinary reasons, we were hardly going to redraft him. By the time we got our second pick in 2000 (we lost picks 2 and 3 through salary cap penalties) all the players you’ve mentioned were gone. It’s hard to say Cameron failed when he never got a chance to pick them and it’s even harder to argue he failed by picking Thomson ahead of them. Another thing you need to take into account is the limitation that existed of only taking one 17 year old. For example, in 1997 we couldn’t take Goodes (who slipped to 43) because he was a 17 year old and we’d already taken Travis as one. But much of this begs the bigger issue. Drafting is not an exact science. Just about every club has missed early picks. Vance, Hill, Cupido, Roach, Beetham, Livingstone, McDougall, Smith, Angwin, Molan, Walsh, Brennan, Bradley, Trotter, Dunn, Meesen and Egan are all picks in the top 10 who have failed or are seriously disappointing at this time. If you look at the top 20 draftees the list grows almost exponentially. The test of Cameron is not to look and identify what he has missed but to compare his strike rate to the strike rate of the other recruiters. When you’ve done this and proved him to be in the bottom half I’ll take note. I suspect that he would be top quartile and I further suspect he’d be very close to top in the last 3 or 4 years. Time will tell how good his recent picks are but one thing is clear. In my opinion it is a meaningless analysis of any recruiter to point out who he has missed. I’d be interested to see the results of a comparative analysis of all recruiters over his time and I’d be interested to see the parameters of the analysis. It would be a major task and one I won’t be doing.

I'm not!

Old, you're a hard man. Let's make a few assumptions here. Let's assume Bode is promoted and Ferg is delisted. We have picks 4,14,21, 53, 69 and then pick 3 in the PSD. So in effect you want to delist a player who holds the record games, record games as captain, record goals and our only power forward for pick 85 in the ND. Sorry Old, but the answer is no. Unlike many I don't believe we are as bad as many think. We won 5 games this year and lost about the same number by a kick or less. We did this with an injury list as serious as any I can remember any team suffering. We had made the finals for the previous 3 years and just about everyone thought our list would be better this year. I don't think we are a cot case. I think at our best we are a 5 or 6 position team. Now I understand this fits with your "we won't win a flag in 2008" but I think footy is a bit more complicated than that. It's important that teams don't get beaten badly and regularly as we did this year. It's important to have good experienced players over the ground teaching and helping younger players and providing an environment in which they can learn and grow. It's important to have big strong bodies available on field otherwise other teams will take advantage of you. And it's very important to have leadership. And I want to see an environment where Michael Newton (and others) can grow into a KPF role as the second or third tall. He can't with Neitz gone. All of these things can be provided by retaining David Neitz. I know many will disagree but I think there is a place for loyalty in footy to your great players. David Neitz has committed so much to this club. If he wants another year I'll not deny him that for pick 85 in the ND.