nutbean

Your list is in trouble when there are not a lot of better footballers on the list than Bail. I see him for what he is and is worth keeping - but we need a whole lot of better footballers than him. I think he has probably been in our top 10 most consistent this year - cudo's to him but what we need is for him to one fighting for the last couple of spots in the team.

When Tmac disposes of the ball quickly (instinctively) he is fine - when he has time to think and starts to assess - that's when he gets scary.

I still some flaws but I see a footballer who has definitely improved and is working on his shortcomings. I would be gobsmacked if Bail was moved on. Will Bail be a superstar ? nah . but I think he can be a player who plays his role every week. I think he has had a remarkably consistent this year. What posters fail to realise is that great sides are made up of champions, good footballers and then role players. The likes of Sydney and Hawthorn are not great because of the first five players picked each week - they are great because of the last 5 players picked. ( I look back to when StKilda where challenging under Lyon - their top end was fantastic - their last five players picked would have struggled to get games in other clubs). We unfortunately are missing top end talent but you don't throw out a consistent role player just because he has a limited ceiling. We undoubtedly need much better players than Bail - that doesnt mean there isnt a place for Bail in the team.

Agreed Rjay - I have no inside knowledge - just what I read in both papers and around the traps. I get the frustration that players lower down the pecking order in the draft do better than the ones we pick , however it just frustrates the life out of me when I hear it questioned "why didn't we take Martin over Scully or Wines over Toumpas" - the reason is simply that both players we took according to published reportsand conventional wisdome were more highly rated. Apart from ranting over our failure to develop players, I have no problems with our then recruiters being whacked for picking the likes of Cook who was purported to be a high teens pick at best. ( we went against conventional wisdom on Cook and look where that landed us)

He would fit in to our team quite well at the moment - his disposal by foot is ordinary. His handballing is terrific. TAC and SANFL are indicators - nothing more.

Congratulations - you apparently are better at spotting talent than any recruiter in the land. Again - I ask anyone to back up their assertion that Scully was not the best junior in the land at draft time and would not go number one. ( for gods sake he was quoted as number one 18 months out from the draft and that never changed) I will make this offer - if you can find me one article by any credentialed journalist quoting recruiters that Martin was a better choice than Scully then I will give 10 to the contrary.

THIS!!!! THIS!!!! THIS!!! grrrrrrrrr. He was a standout in that draft - that was at TAC level and playing seniors in SANFL. That's where people saw it !!!!! He is now not playing in that competition - he is playing AFL. It needs to be understood that just because you are top notch junior doesn't necessarily mean you will be a top notch AFL footballer - just ask Tom Scully. (for the record - I have no idea if Toumpas will or won't make it - I think one and half seasons is not an adequate time to judge. Scully - I believe that by 23/24 you havent made it the odds of making it are not in your favor)

But you are assuming that there is a massive emphasis on these things. I suggested before that recruiters have done their homework way before the draft camp and these tests may highlight what the recruiters already know from watching games. Until we know what weight the recruiters place on the "tests" then we are guessing as to their worth. I have heard many posters bring up that such and such had the highest leap at draft camp to push the draftees case but to date I haven't heard a recruiter suggest that a draftee was recruited because of draft camp testing.

Mrtwister - one more factor. Supporters have also developed an impatience in regards to draftees producing quality football early. Most have forgotten that the kids still have young underdeveloped bodies, undeveloped tanks and skillsets. We have also seen over numerous years that the bigger key position players and ruckman take even longer to develop. We get footballers like Wines that are ready from day one and any other footballer that isn't as developed or producing from day one is automatically lambasted because of it. With the Wines debate - why are people limiting the discussion to our mistake - if you extend the logic that he definitely should have been taken instead of Toumpas - then he shouldn't have been available at our pick - Wines has been far superior to the GWS picks before us - he should have gone to GWS.

I would think so - but with the emphasis and dollars spent on recruiting there is an expectation that it should be so. With this expectation, when a high draft pick underperforms there is now more "spotlight" on them than ever before. I would definitely say that clubs are much more informed and have more insight into the draftees - the major problem will always exist that there is such a gulf between the AFL and all feeder competitions ( be it TAC ,SANFL, VFL etc) the huge question mark will be - can the player produce the same skills, pressure, hardness at the highest level. The game is infinitely quicker, the bodies bigger and pressure much more intense and physical at AFL level - many do continue to progress and improve and their attributes make the transition - some don't. We have had more than our fair shares of "some don't". (I have also posted many times that successful clubs on and off field both in terms of coaching, development, stability and superior lists make this transition infinitely easier)

The more astute the recruiter the better the result but I still use Scully as perfect example. He was touted as a number one draft pick at the age of 16 by everyone - I am not sure I can remember a more certain lock for number one as Scully. Described as a machine - in his early training sessions with us they had to hold him back as he was going too hard. Yes, there was a slight knock on his kicking but it was more than compensated by his apparent ability to get to so many contests and impact them. Many may want to suggest that his heart wasnt in at the Dees but he has hardly set the world on fire at GWS. He may still come good but the bottom line is that 4 years on - his junior form has absolutely not translated at AFL level. The most outstanding part of Scully's non performance is apparently the biggest tick for him was his attitude and will to succeed. This was absent with us and just as absent with GWS There are many examples of highly touted juniors who just have not gone on at AFL level and conversely there are many that had average wraps on them that have excelled in the big time. What really miffs me is many posters who don't want to understand that there is sometimes no correlation between between TAC form and AFL form. Is Martin a better footballer than Scully at this stage and possibly for his career - absolutely no doubt. Anyone suggesting that this outcome was known at the time of drafting and we should have drafted Martin is kidding themselves. Even the whole Toumpas vs Wines debate has me scratching my head. For the whole of the final year it was reported by all TAC watchers that Toumpas was between picks 2-4 and Wines was around the 5 plus mark. Toumpas was higher rated at the time. There is no evidence to the contrary. Is Wines a better footballer here and now than Toumpas - definitely. Will Wines be better over his career - who knows but guessing - probably. But at the time of drafting Toumpas was rated higher. So in hindsight we should have taken Wines but at the time the selection was correct ( as opposed to Cook and Strauss who were taken way too early). To those who say - I always rated Wines higher than Toumpas I say congratulations - get a job as a recruiter because you know better than all the other current recruiters.

Better disguised ? If anything Dawes hit was more innocuous than Merret's. Again - rub out both of them for their incidents or rub out neither - the inconsistency is appalling.

And they survived the wrath of the empire.

I would agree with you if I thought for a moment that recruiters relied too heavily on testing , stats , combines etc. I posted about a month ago that I was walking my dogs past the Oakleigh chargers ground and there was a pick up match between the Vic metro squad - so basically a training session. There were 8 club recruiters there that I could actually identify - I am sure there were others there that I didn't necessarily see. There is an enormous amount of time put in by all clubs in actually watching these boys play regularly. I think the draft camp is more about talking to players you have not yet talked to and maybe seeing some lower round draft "smokies". I would suggest that the top of the draft order is well sorted prior to the camp. The camp is more about making up your mind between two players that you may have already earmarked. Recruiters do rely on the eye rather than these stats and camps but psychological testing is becoming more and more important (lol at amount of people who wanted Gartlett at the MFC). All this not withstanding - the comments regarding the gulf between TAC and AFL still is relevant and can make absolutely mockery of a "good eye".

I played basketball and was throwing the ball in from the defensive baseline after the opposition scored a basket - one of our players made a break towards our goal so i decided to do the long throw down the court - the ball slipped over the top of my fingers went straight up like a rocket - hit the opposition backboard above my head came hurtling down and hit me on the top of my head knocking me out cold. Top that Jordie !

But I have seen him coming out of the Bunyip bottle shop balancing 4 slabs on his shoulders - try that !!!!

Scully was ordinary in the TAC competition ? revisionism at its very best. Again please point me to where at draft time you suggested taking Dustin Martin over Scully. I'll go one better - point to one article quoting any recruiter from any club who considered anyone else other than Scully going number one in the draft. He was undoubtedly the best junior in the land. edit - the problem is that the best TAC juniors don't necessarily go on to be great AFL footballers.

Roos pointed out the number one problem recruiters face in an interview earlier this year. The TAC is the best underage competition in the land HOWEVER the gulf between TAC and AFL is immense. Roos mentioned that players learn little defensively and they have an eternity to dispose of the ball in many situations as opposed to the pressure in the AFL. This time difference can hide a myriad of problems in terms of decision making and disposal. Roos concluded that the real learning for TAC footballers only starts when they get to the AFL system. Recruiting is so far away from exact science - it amuses me when we compare players after a season or two and conclude we should have know better at time of recruiting. Go through every club - they all have stories of how they got some recruiting decisions so horribly wrong.

I'm with you on Robbo. I don't think he is vindicative like others. I think Robbo should be more concerned - not that people don't like him - but that people don't take him seriously.

I have been a supporter of Jack Watts as I think he is sublime with the ball in his hands. Very creative. I was ultra disappointed the manner in which he jogged from contest to contest on Sunday. I had this horrific thought last night - maybe Jack is the second coming of Colin Sylvia ? Promised so much but alas ...

First three or four games I was slightly critical that he was shutting down a player but not much else. With a whole season of playing he is showing that wonderful balance of knowing when to defend on the player and when to attack the ball. He has that one great trait that all really good footballers have - he doesn't lose his feet or easily go to ground..

I will go one further - not only does he not cough it up, his first instinct is to look for line breaking disposals - the kick to JKH in the centre of the ground 60 metres away ( last quarter I think) that travelled 50 metres arrived to him on the bounce and JKH fumbled a bouncing ball was sublime in its audacity. He only chips sidewards and backwards when there is no obvious target up the field. His commitment to get to contests on Sunday - ewwww.

I don't have a problem with that if similar incidents are assessed the same way - bottom line is that they are not. Dawes should feel very aggrieved.

I wonder if the GWS and Bulldogs fan forums [censored] and moan as much as we do. None of the first 3 picks for GWS have hit the mark like Wines has and McCrae is not up to Wines standard so the Bullies missed out as well. I will judge their careers when they are more than two seasons old but again all those who are whining weren't whining pre-draft about the possibility of Toumpas. Its a turkey shoot and every year one or two players pop up who were passed up by many and there are some that taken early because of their TAC pedigree that never make it. You can only take what you believe to the best at the time.

Of course Stats in isolation don't tell a story. Statistics need to form part of an overall picture. Roos in his presser said that our problem was not in getting to contests and winning them - it was what we did with the ball after we got it. The stats bears out that on Sunday we did well in contested footy. Our eyes bear out that we butchered the ball like 8 year old suburban footballers.