nutbean

I hope that recruiters use their own IP to determine who they pick - I really hope so Can you post where Viney was into Toumpas because there is a myth (?) floating around on here that Viney wanted Wines but was overruled by Neeld (and Jack Watts). Following your line of thinking, you too would have taken Toumpas before Wines ?

Show me an expert who didn't rate Toumpas top 4 and I'll be surprised. This draft like every other draft will have a selection inside the top 5 who will disappoint. We got 2 picks inside the top 5 - we want the disappointed to be some other club.

I don't think we should stay clear but pick players on conviction rather than group think. As a group you are 100% correct the higher draft picks have more chance of success than the lower draft picks but the top 10 can almost be like trying to pick the correct order in the Melbourne cup. I will state categorically we made a mistake picking Toumpas over Wines however all research at the time, all experts at the time, rated Toumpas higher. Everyone had Toumpas being selected before Wines. The unanswerable questions remains - did our recruiters , like everyone else rate Toumpas higher than Wines or did we go along with group think. Fact - history shows us that the order of selection does not equal the order of success. Most drafts follows conventional thinking of who is picked where - ( there are exceptions - Rich slipped, Grundy slipped) - therefore there is every chance that if we follow what what is assumed to be the conventional order we may be sadly disappointed.

I disagree - whilst I think our forward work needed a lot more improvement but you are taking one area of the game only. My eyes saw the overall improvement from the year before. You have rightly pointed out that there were 6 games under 40 points and never kicked a 100 points but omitted to put in the dramatic improvement in the points against column. My eyes told me that we were in a lot more games for a lot longer this year than last.

It doesn't stink - it just defies logic and closes the eyes and mind to history. It needs to be repeated again - go back through history and posters will find that the "rankings" have never been right and the top 10 fancied draft picks have never ever performed in the order as selected. Every year there are top picks that fail and the Fyfes of the world who get picked up later and turn into world beaters. (For those who want to moan about not taking Fyfe - he was so highly rated that he wasn't even Freo's first choice). RPFC - you have suggested that we should take the player who will think will be the best not necessarily who is rated the best now - I agree although the difficulty lies in getting that assessment right which is notoriously difficult. (your other comments regarding these draftees being too young to make a definitive call is also 100% spot on)

The owl hoots as the bee pollinates the antelope....

not really... I hardly know what the hell I am going to say next so how would anyone else ?

Silly Jedi mind tricks....that just might work....

Roos appears to me a person who would take in everyone's opinion and make them feel valued and then guide you to come to the exact same opinion as he holds.

Persuaded maybe. I would suggest that Roos is overruled on nothing...( at least not recruiting decisions)

maybe so...but laughing when someone fails at our club...you gotta wonder why support the club in the first place...

What I do find amusing is I could actually write Bolts column for him - he is THAT predictable...

Interesting posters questioning him with regard to his failure at the doggies. I won't be as bold to suggest who failed whom at the doggies however... We didn't hire Neeld as head coach because he was a poor assistant St Kilda didn't hire Watters as head coach because he was a poor assistant The list goes on... McCartney is very well credentialed. I think posters need to understand that highly respected and effective assistants don't necessarily go on to make good head coaches but that does not detract from the fact that they are very good assistants. (Have a read of the tributes to Neeld from Collingwood players when he left to come to us) If Roos thinks he is a good assistant to have then it is it good enough for me. As an aside - This is why I like a succession plan. Whilst Goodwin will not be completely left to run the ship solo in 2016, Roos will definitely step back and let Goodwin take the reins to see how he performs and mentor him so there is not a shock to the system in 2017 when Goodwin becomes the head coach in his own right. I read an article on the Swans handover to Longmire and the same pattern they followed - the move from Longmire to Roos was seamless as the players already experienced a year of Longmire running the ship even though Roos was head coach. ( the one disclaimer in all this, is Roos has got to like what he sees of Goodwin in 2016 in his L plates head coach year)

Ballantyne rates as my most disliked footballer currently playing. Would I have him at our club ? in a heartbeat.

I wouldnt't draft MCartin purely on the basis that he looks like Hayden Ballantyne.

Actually one club failed to unlock his potential. One club has failed to unlock the potential of many a draftee - I am sort of seeing a constant theme....

Because I try to read widely. I read a lot by people I agree with but I think ( hope ) it broadens my knowledge and understanding by reading people I don't agree with. And on the "don't agree with " scale Bolt rates right at the top end - but I read him none the less.

Just a technicality - after reviewing Mark Jackson and his handstand I believe it points to the sky.

Easier said than done... We didn't get clever with Toumpas and look how that turned out We didn't get clever with Scully /Trengove and look how that turned out We didn't get clever with Morton and look how that turned out We tried to be clever with Cook and look how that turned out We tried to be clever with Gysberts and look how that turned out The biggest change for me is not that we now have ability to pick the right footballer - We appear to have a coach and staff who can develop whoever we pick. This has been glaringly missing in the past.

our last winning final - vs StKilda 2006 - elimination Melbourne Match Statistics (Sorted by Disposals) Coach: Neale Daniher Player K HB D M G B T HO FF FA Cameron Bruce 15 14 29 9 1 2 7 0 1 2 Brad Green 20 9 29 6 0 0 1 0 1 1 Brock McLean 14 11 25 2 2 0 7 0 4 1 James McDonald 12 8 20 6 1 0 4 0 2 1 Jeff White 9 11 20 4 0 0 2 30 3 1 Travis Johnstone 17 1 18 5 0 0 5 0 1 3 Adem Yze 11 5 16 4 1 0 2 0 1 2 Daniel Bell 9 7 16 5 0 0 3 0 0 1 Byron Pickett 11 4 15 4 1 2 5 0 3 2 Daniel Ward 9 6 15 4 0 0 4 0 1 0 Colin Sylvia 11 3 14 4 0 1 4 0 1 0 Matthew Bate 9 5 14 5 1 0 1 1 1 4 Ben Holland 6 7 13 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 Jared Rivers 4 8 12 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 Brad Miller 5 6 11 8 1 0 2 0 0 0 David Neitz 9 2 11 3 4 3 0 0 2 0 Matthew Whelan 5 5 10 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 Nathan Carroll 6 4 10 5 0 0 1 0 1 1 Aaron Davey 6 4 10 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 Russell Robertson 7 2 9 3 1 1 1 0 2 0 Nathan Jones 5 4 9 1 0 0 2 1 0 4 Mark Jamar 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 ( that Sylvia could be something if he could get a decent preseason into him) edit - well it didnt look like that when I pasted it in !

Our forward line is fairly average and I don't like stats for stats sake but geez - what a horrible set of numbers they are We were last for inside 50's in the league by a fair margin. Swans got the ball into their forward half on average 24 times more a game than we did !! We were last for marks inside 50 by a fair margin. PA took on average 7 more marks inside their forward 50 per game than we did. We were last for shots on goal by a fair margin. The Hawks average 10 more goals than us a match. I believe we need everything but it is fairly hard to take a mark or kick a goal in our forward half if it is not getting in there. I'm a believer in pick 2&3 being a mid and a mid. Don't ask me who they should be as I will leave it those more knowledgeable than me.

I'm taking my bat and ball and going home.

I read Andrew Bolts piece on Whitlam this morning ( I know - what was I thinking ) - as you would imagine - not a fan of Whitlams. He is such an objectionable man ( and highly predictable). There are countless books on the Whitlam era that points out his great achievements laced with his many failings and shortcomings. There is no doubt in my that he was a true visionary in what he wanted for Australia even if his ability to implement was lacking. I just found it distasteful to launch such a broadside at such a great man at his passing.

You pretty well summed up what was actually going through his mind during his playing days and probably every year since....

i sometimes go to non MFC games live and it is a shock to the system when you watch two really good teams go at it - actually more like depressing.