phoenix

People look at the strength of lists and sheet all the responsibility back to the recruiter for its strengths and weaknesses. But bringing young talent to a club is only part of the story. The second part and arguably just as, if not more, important is the development of the player once he arrives. Under Daniher and Fagan Melbourne did not see the need to allocate many resources to this area. Connolly and Bailey do and we now have separate development coaches and there is far more emphasis on player welfare. In addition Connolly has pretty much reshaped the medical and conditioning sides of the club and hopefully we move from one of the most injury plagued clubs to one who has, at minimum, "average" injuries. Cameron had his shocker selections and years with 2001 the low light. But his last two year (in 2006 and 2007) have produced Morton, Grimes, Maric, Cheney, McNamara, Martin, Wonaeamirri, Spencer, Frawley, Petterd, Garland. They will be subject to the "Bailey/Connolly" development program not the Daniher/Fagan one. How many of you don't share significant excitement when looking at this bunch of players and if we succeed they will form a good part of our success. If that happens Craig Camerons fingers will be all over it and we will owe him. And who is to say that if the same infrastructure was around from day 1 we would not have had significantly better results with our recruiting. Many see football in simplistic terms but it is highly complicated with numerous aspects to get right. Rarely is a clubs situation the result of one thing but of course this makes analysis difficult and that does not suit some. On balance, and with the infrastructure he had, I think CAC did a better than average job and perhaps a very good job. If his last few years selections help win us a flag I'll rate him as exceptional.

Joe should be welcomed back for the time and commitment he put into the club in the past. The fact that much of the excitement is because people think he will put in more money is distasteful in the extreme.

I think it would be silly to suggest that our ruck position is strong but this is not an issue for the last 2 years. In the 2008 Rookie Draft we recruited Spencer. Good get I'd have thought. In the same year we traded for Meesen. We spent pick 37 on him. He was originally a top 10 draft pick who hadn't kicked on. Looks like a bad get in my book. So we picked up TWO ruckmen in one of the two years you refer to. This year we didn't pick up a ruckman but that is not impacting us now. Are you really suggesting a skinny first year draft pick could play senior footy?? If you are I'd suggest you rethink. Our error was 4 or so years ago where we didn't recruit a ruckman. Anyway Hoops, what is the point of picking someone because they are a ruckman if they are never going to make it? That doesn't help you. In 2008 we addressed a couple of glaring shortcomings on our list. We didn't tick off all bases because there were just too many. I'd think we may well look to trade for a ruckman next year. Whether we can get one of course is another issue.

We are in the happy position of having 5 key backs who probably could all play. I've always been a huge Frawley fan and believed those who criticised him were expecting too much too soon. He's had a great PS and looked very good on Saturday. Warnock is a solid back who will stick close but not offer much else. Martin is huge and has amazing closing speed and good strenght. Garland is probably first picked but interestingly has the versitility to play on smalls. And then we have Rivers. Almost everyone has Rivers in the team despite having not had an impact on a game for the last two years in his grand total of 9 games. For mine he's fifth in line and we have built him up into a player he rarely, if ever, was. Rivers needs to show over the next 4 weeks or so he can still play, both physically (by staying out there) and skillfully (having the attributes to deserve a place). The game has changed significantly in the two years he hasn't played and not in his favour. His situation has changed dramatically. Last year I would have said he was in our top 3 most important players, but with Warnock, Garland and Martin doing so well last year and the emergance of Frawley, Rivers now needs to earn his spot. I think he can but Saturday was a bad start. If our first game of the season was on Saturday Rivers would not be in my team.

How often do you want an update Pringle? At the AGM, which was less than two weeks ago, Stynes said the club was persuing a number of options and doing everything it could to secure sponsorship. Obviously the club is working hard on this issue, it's worth millions of dollars a year. It would be inappropriate and irresponsible for the club to give ongoing updates beyond what was said at the AGM and would only hinder our chances of getting a sponsor.

Sadly I think you're wrong. Harris had 4 years to build a robust and sustainable administration during a period of on field success and AFL assistance (and a major sponsor already establish, I think). But what he produced was a dysfunctional administration and a broken morale. He was responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in early termination of employees many who he personally employed. He destroyed our relationship with the AFL and the MCC and left us with no "Brand" of any credibility. We missed the sponsorship of Mission Foods (?), knocked off by the Bullies. What a disgrace. Well not really. We had no offering. We had no community programs. We have few Saturday games and no home Friday night games. We were a rabble on the field last year in which we had 4 CEO's and two Boards. Infact the only thing that was done well was the pragmatic and graceful change of Boards for which Gardner and his senior Board members take a great deal of credit. Now I don't blame Harris for the on field stuff. But the rest fits squarely in his court. He left a shell that will take years to rebuild, not months. The blame for the lack of sponsorship doesn't sit solely with Stynes and Schwab, in fact it doesn't sit primarily with them. It come from years of terrible CEO's, the most recent being Ellis and Harris who failed to appropriately or effectively manage the MFC and have left what must be close to an unsalable proposition. And I know you're smart enough to know this. I agree Stynes and his Board need to be actively held to account but this must be done using sensible parameters.

I'm not a Jimma lover (I dislike him intensely) and I wasn't a fan of Paul Mac. I'm difficult to get on with. I find it hard to believe that Paul "just made it up". I also find it hard to understand why someone who is CEO in an organisation, knows he's "gone" and has a therefore understandably poor relationship with the Board would:- - bother to spend serious time in England finding a sponsor for the MFC and; - when and if he managed to find one would not tell his Board to protect his job. If he wanted to keep his job he would have told the Board. If he didn't want to keep his job why would he have spent time looking for a sponsor? Paul has been damaged by what happened. He has motive but I find it hard to believe this claim came from nothing. From my personal experiences of professional disappointment I think it's easy to rewrite/interpret history favourably. My suspicion is that Paul Mac mentioned sponsorship to someone who didn't dismiss it. But we'll never know. This whole sponsorship argument is a bit of a pillow fight for mine. Nobody here knows. And I confess to not having waded my way through all the posts but it seems to me that the real culprit here is Harris. During economic glory days we should have been offering Primus an extention or negotiating and signing a new sponsor for when Primus didn't extend. If we couldn't do this for contractual reasons we still had the duty to make such good contract and develop such good relations with other corporates that they were waiting in the wings when Primus didn't continue. To suggest Paul Mc or Schwab are negligent is missing the point IMO as major sponsorships are rarely established in weeks even in the good times. In today's economic climate it's even more difficult. MFC's performance with corporates for just about as long as I can remember has been terrible so no major sponsor is no surprise to me. It is certainly not the sole responsibility of Paul Mc or Schwab. It probably rests more comfortably with Harris. But that probably suits no body's agenda.

He can get the ball.

I'm a bit torn on this. I agree Newton is a one trick pony, but it's a good trick. Petterd is a one trick pony too, but it's as good a trick as there is. Back to Newton. Is he worth a spot on the list? Well, if he's never going to make it then "No", but I don't think we can definately say that yet. If he's gone we have the first pick after Jord McKenzie, (pick 7 in the PSD which we would have used on McKenzie and then with the first pick in the Rookie draft). Now, I reckon we have enough "good footballers". Our list is littered with players who are either 1st or 2nd round picks or who can play. Another Jord McKenzie probably isn't going to make any difference to us. But for all Newton's failings which I accept, he does kick goals and has done so at all levels. 37 scoring shots in 16 games at AFL level for 23 goals, that's not bad. Stats aren't everything but then again, the score is just a stat. Like I said, it's a good trick. IMO, as long as he's "cheap", he's probably worth the contract because if he does "work" we get something very valuable. But I understand why people think not and I woundn't have my money on him.

Agree with that. Collingwood had very good inside mids (Licuria, Burns and O'Bree) but they didn't have the class or speed of Lapin, Voss, Akka and Power. Keating knocking it to advantage with long punches was very effective. I'm excited about Spencer because I think he'll be a competitive big man who will cost us nothing. The excitement is his cost, not his ability and if he can do the negating job it means you don't have to trade or draft for that position in the near future so you can use those picks sorting out other issues with the list.

There are other things to be considered as well. Collingwood got to two GF's without a ruckman's bootlace. They nearly won one but for a debatable goal umpiring decision. How important was a dominant ruckman? But the real change is in the way the game is played. Since 2003 the average number of disposals in a game has increased from about 290 to 360 per game. Short kicks have increased significantly, close to 100%. Stoppages, which were the domain of the Swans gameplan, are being umpired out of the game with holding the ball interpretations. When there is a stoppage outside the CS there are about 30 players around it. This makes it extraordinarily difficult for a ruckman to be effective. Geelong have set a new standard with possession footy. The game will change in the future and nobody really knows where it will go, but the AFL want a fast game with fewer stoppages. Vale the ruckman. Centre square clearances are now the best opportunity for a ruckman to influence games. But teams have become masters at creating a "secondary stoppage", a term that didn't exist 24 months ago. The "ruckman" debate is one of the great one's of footy ATM, it will be interesting to see where it finishes. My opinion is ruckmen are all sizzle and no sausage.

No, I'd prefer to watch the Grand Final and see the lack of impact any ruckman had. And I look at Cox, Sandilands and Hille playing in bottom teams. I agree that you have to have a ruckman who gives a contest and stops the opposition ruckman giving his midfield a joyride and it would also be nice to have Cox. But WC wouldn't have lost so much this year if they had lost Cox instead of Cousins and Judd. Ruckmen are grossly overrated IMO and will become moreso as the game develops. I'm very pleased we missed Warnock; not because he mightn't be a good ruckman but because Carlton have given him a huge salary which is out of proportion with his importance to the team. Midfields win you games, not ruckmen. And at the moment we have neither.

Why? Did you see my earlier post? Which ruckmen do you fear in opposition teams? Tell me why you fear them. Is their ability to get the ball to their midfield one of them? Probably not. It's more likely their impact once the ball is in play. Ruckmen get about 30 taps a game and about 10% are effective. Schweppes, you want to have a traditional ruckman????? PJ needs to do one thing; stop the opposing ruckmen having effective hit outs. That's all. He can then use his agility and "small man skills" around the ground and hurt opposition much more than a player like Brogan, Jolly or Chraman. Todays game is possession, kicking and skill. Many blame the centre square rule changes for Jeff White's demise. It was a small part of it. White's demise was because he stopped being effective around the ground.

Agreed. There are two ruckmen who sit at the top of the tree in the AFL at the moment. One plays for a team that finished 15th and the other for the team that finished 14th. The team that finished 15th this year won a flag two years ago and would have been a serious contender in 07 but for the fact that its elite midfield was decimated. And why did it finish 15th this year? Because its midfield was decimated. I don't give a rats about ruckmen, in my opinion they are becoming less relevant as time goes on. The game, which was stoppage rich in 2006 when Sydney and WC slugged it out is being umpired away from that. Four boundry umpires mean ruckmen become less relevent. Ruckmen usually have poorer disposal than smaller players and therefore turn the ball over more; this is about the greatest sin in footy at the moment. Even the best ruckmen have a low percentage of hitouts to advantage. IMO as long as you have a ruckmen who stops the opposition ruckman from having a large number of effective hitouts that's all you need. When people laud Cox and Sandilands they are usually thinking of their work around the ground, rarely the dominant tap work. If WC had lost Cox instead of Judd, Cousins and Kerr for much of last season it would still have played finals. Now I'm not saying it's to a teams disadvantage to have a player like Cox, clearly it isn't. But Cox is great because he is a ruckmen/midfielder. Midfields are where games are won and lost nowadays. We have a third world midfield and Prendergast has addressed that this year. West Coast's fall from grace is instructive. If you have an exceptional midfield you win games. Hawthorn and Geelong proved this year that ruckmen are a nice garnish to a team. They are not steak and potatoes. Paul Johnson, with his ground skills and kicking ability, might just prove to be quite valuable.

With all due respect to you blokes you really are getting your knickers in a knot about very little. In case you hadn't noticed on 29th November they held a thing called the National Draft. In that draft about 75 players were selected and they represented the collective wisdom of 16 AFL clubs who have anywhere between 10 and 30 people scouring the country for talent. So on a very conservative basis about 160 people, who make it their business and earn a living spotting talent, had their say. Now there is a bloke out there called Sibosado that has a cute name, has been likened to Franklin with a dash of Goodes thrown in and who Emma Quayle made famous but who was judged not to be in the top 75 players of this years pool. Now here's the message..... There was a reason..... Now I know that good players fall through but the reality is they are few and far between. The PSD is now a non event and really just an extension of the ND as is the Rookie Draft. We are dealing with the highly speculative areas of drafting. None of the kids left have presented compelling arguments to be drafted; if they had they would have been. My message? By all means have a sense of excitement about the PSD and the RD, but lets not pretend that we are likely to draft a player who will significantly impact our club and lets not suggest that selecting one player over another at this stage is "a significant blunder". And to people who are on the Sibosado band wagon, like DD, have you seen him play or are you just seduced by the image that is being painted? Enjoy the drafts, but in reality our excitement is in Watts, Blease and Strauss with a nice suppliment in Morton, Grimes and Maric. It is in these players a large part of our future lies.

What if he was hit by a tram between the announcement and the draft process?

Gosh, sounds like the next big thing - skillful ball magnet that can kick a goal. Port were silly to let him go. FFS, you want another club's reject?? PA have had a couple of years to evaluate him and reckon he's no good. You can have him and your Hislops and other recycled players. I'll look to pick up a Simon Buckley, Clint Bartram, Stef Martin or Colin Garland with my late picks thanks and you can flounder with rejects. I don't really care if we miss a "serviceable" player, we've actually got plenty of them. What we lack are players who can really dominate and play elite grade footy. We lack players opposition clubs worry about. You blokes can agonise over recycled NQR players but I'd rather improve the list picking players who just might make a difference. Garland, Buckley and Martin might. It's worth having your misses to get players like that. Why would you waste time, resources and opportunity replacing one average player (like CJ) with another average player (like Bentley). Start thinking son, it's fun!!

My understanding is that to go into the PSD he has to nominate terms. What are they? Without that piece of information this hypothetical is meaningless.

I love it when people have a go at others only to show themselves complete idiots. Sylvia will be given a go and perhaps succeed this year because: 1) He had his first full preseason ever 2) He doesn't have to compete with Neitz and Robbo on the forward line. Instead of being the 3rd or 4th option he's now 1st or 2nd. Gee, what a surprise that he's doing better. Might have helped Miller too.

16 shots at goal in 2 weeks, 7 or 8 shots last week in terrible conditions for forwards with limited opportunities. I'm not saying he should be in, but he hasn't been AWOL for weeks, he's played two pretty good weeks.

I'm not a great reader of this forum other than to get information on games and other peoples views on games I've seen. I'm particularly interested in your view on Newton. Gosh, fancy a young enthusiastic player looking at a cold windswept ground and saying he could kick it from the square. You know why Nick wouldn't have said that? Because he wouldn't run that far, he'd be sitting in the goal square waiting for the easy handball over the top. I thought Newton played a very interesting game. He, along with Maric, were the most polished forwards on the ground on a day that was terrible for tall forwards with the ball blown everywhere and the delivery pretty ordinary. He took some excellent contested marks, led well and kicked some really good set shot goals in difficult conditions. He kicked 4 goals 3 behinds and I'd rate that effort as very good on the day. He's had about 16 shots at goal in the last two weeks. The frustration yesterday was he looked like he could do more. He missed a couple of marks you'd hope he would take and doesn't appear to put his heart and soul into it, but I'm not sure that we just don't expect to much of him. Will he make it? I don't know as I wonder about his intensity and his ability to handle the pressure of AFL footy. He might be one of those footballer that are far to good for VFL footy but not quite good enough for AFL. But I'm glad he's excited about kicking goals, FFS, that's his job. Oh, and I'm with Jarka. Pass on whatever information you want to, but don't big note yourself with saying "I know something you don't know". You're probably not that important.

Jarka you were the one who said "Yeah, gee thanks CAC for the list of absolute champions we currently have". I was responding to that and trying to help you understand that our lack of champions is not the fault of one person. Thankfully it seems you've finally caught on ("Was he soley responsible? Hell no, obviously) so we may get a more thoughtful analysis from you if this topic come up again. It shows you're learning. Well done and keep up the good work.

Jarka your position on Craig Cameron is well known to anyone who has the energy to read Demonland. In fact it's like a broken record and your preparedness to come out swinging any time his name is mentioned is just plain boring. You're not the only one who does this, but sadly it makes Demonland a boring read. You'll point out that I don't have to read it and you're right. And guess what, I don't usually but I do read some of the threads on list management because I think it is a difficult and interesting area. It's also an area that the mug supporter (broadly - one who doesn't work in the pointy end of an AFL football department) can try and understand. I've seen other debates you've been in on this topic and it seems your mind is made up. As far as I'm concerned that's fine but I'd invite you to consider a couple of other things in your consideration of our current list and your crusade of consigning Craig Cameron to the waste paper basket: 1. Do you think players automatically reach their potential without development once they've reached a club? 2. Do you think we've had the financial resources of other clubs to physically and mentally develop our players? 3. Do you think it is coincidence that Collingwood have the best drilled team in the league and have massively increased their player welfare budget in recent years including yearly trips to the United States to develop leadership and fitness? 4. Do you think that Daniher was a teaching and development coach and developed our players to their maximum ability? 5. Whilst criticising Craig Cameron have you looked to his relative performance against other clubs? Have you considered the scope and funding of our (his) recruiting resources compared to others and the impact that this could have on results? If you've done these things good on you but you've certainly kept your findings to yourself. If you haven't considered these things then I'd invite you to do so. If you can't be bothered considering them that's fine, just don't expect many to take your opinions seriously. Selecting a player is only the start of developing a list and a "gun". Nasher is right. There is an area between "best" and "worst". Craig's fans probably over rate him and others like you under rate him. Personally I don't mind where people sit as long as they base there positions on fact. Nudge didn't which is why I corrected him. People learn much more by listening than talking. It's interesting to note you have close to 2000 posts while I have about 50.

Nudge if you are going to criticise someone for failing to do their job then how about doing yours? Newton (43), Neville (68), Miller (55) and Williams (Rookie elevation) were all late round picks. And I hate to disappoint you but CAC wasn't even the recruiting manager when Grgic was selected. I'm afraid that your lack of knowledge rather renders your opinion redundant. You really know very little about footy do you? I'm not convinced about Frawley yet but I've got faith. Gumbleton (2), Hansen (3) and Thorp (6) were all taken in the same draft (Frawley at 12) and are yet to fire a shot. Have you written them off as well? It's been said so often that talls take time that I'd have thought you might have caught on but sadly the concept seems to be one with which you are unfamiliar. I note your comments on another thread about Garland.... "truly excited". Well well, guess who picked him. Thanks CAC.

You can debate individual situations all you like. As they say, the exceptions prove the rule. Are you suggesting there aren't, on occasions, differing objectives of both parties? If there are, are you suggesting the solution is to allow Sandringham to have control and preference in all situations? There is no doubt that all Victorian AFL clubs would like to have and control their own seconds team. It's interesting that Geelong have their own VFL team and they are the only Victorian team to win the GF since Essendon in 2000 which I think I'm right in saying is the first year of the AFL/VFL relationship. The reason all AFL clubs would like their own VFL team is so they can control and develop their players. Sandy proudly acclaim they have the best relationship of any VFL club. It's probably partly because the MFC are good partners. That should be recognised and respected. It's clearly not the attitude of ZG and his attitude is offensive to many MFC supporters.