Arsene Wenger

Yeah, I pretty much agree with your point, but I wanted to point out that even those who are seen as the best in the business, are not infallible. Westcoast took on Steven Armstrong, and even played him in a premiership side. History is littered with lesser players making cameos. It doesn't mean Gardiner was a hit. And even in a draft where Wells took so many good choices, he still had enough picks to make a miss and make it earlier than some of the guns he chose. So maybe it was more a scattershot method based on stockpiling picks? Maybe they were one of the earliest clubs to think of drafts years ahead in terms of the strength and depth? I don't know.

Trent West? He's not that bloody good. And I know ruckmen develop more slowly, but I'd want a better return 7 years in.

I'd be interested to know who these recruiters are that haven't fluffed more than a couple of top 30 picks. Even the universally highly regarded Stephen Wells at Geelong has on his record - 1998: Peter Street (17), David Clarke (20). - 1999: Joel Corey (8) David Spriggs (15), Ezra Bray (17), Daniel Foster (23) in the year he is lauded for selecting Chapman, Ling and Corey. - 2000: no top 30 picks, traded in Kent Kingsley, Justin Murphy, Mitchell White. - 2001: Charlie Gardener (23) a pick before Steve Johnson, in the same year they took Ablett, Bartel, Kelly, and Henry Playfair at 41. - 2002: Tim Callan at 36, after selecting Mackie (8) and Lonergan (23) who took 8 years to show something. - 2003: Kane Tenace (7), Cameron Thurley (22) - 2004: Geelong traded out of the top 30 to get Ottens for picks 12 (Danny Meyer) and 16 (Adam Pattison). Ouch. - 2005: Travis Varcoe (15), Trent West (31) - 2006: Joel Selwood (7), Nathan Djerrkura (25) The rest are probably too recent to assess, like Dawson Simpson, Dan McKenna, etc. What does this all boil down to? Quite a few misses making it look like unrealistic expectations by some posters.

According to Footy Classified, we activated them. And Rendell was raving about how good the draft will be - "best ever draft" he said. The reason why he signed on for another 3 years as a recruiter, even though he was sick of the role. Now all we need to do is make sure we have a bloody good head of recruiting! Happy days

INTENSE Footy Classified tonight.

D-Day is tomorrow, no?

Really? Do you really think Colin lacks the ability to get more kicks? 1. As has been stated many times, we aren't going to have a much greater focus on defense than in the past. This is one thing Colin hasn't been great at. He has been accused at times of running one way. Do you think maybe the coach asked Colin to prove to him he can perform a role within our defensive structures? Also, do you think that adhering to these defensive structures may reduce his ability to get the ball in the midfield and around stoppages, depending on the role he has been given? 2. I happen to know that the coaches' focus and setup around stoppages revolves around our first priority being denying the opposition a clearance, second is to try to create a secondary stoppage, and then finally win a clearance ourselves if we can. Offense created through defense, but overwhelmingly defense first. As it should be, in my eyes. 3. The game style we have been playing (set up defensively and bang it long when we get the footy) hasn't exactly been conducive to getting a lot of possessions the way he would have previously.

Viney is smaller and tougher. Nothing for McKenzie to be ashamed of. It'd be like being offended for being accused of having less money than Bill Gates.

I'm pretty sure they take it out as soon as the bone has fused together correctly and it is no longer needed. The Ox? Oh good, for a moment there I was worried you weren't going to give a current example... Everything you're suggesting, I'm sure they've thought of, and more. That's the point of him going through the rehab group, then normal preseason training, and practice matches. I'll continue to back the medical dept, because I sure as hell don't know any better.

- Great, you don't need to explain why... thanks for the reply then. Watts was bottom-age, unlike the others, and they all still have a lot of development to do. I'd prefer the output of the others right now, but I'm not silly enough to believe Watts can't eclipse them in the near future. - Harry Taylor had the fortune of landing in a premiership side, where he could slot in the newly vacant CHB position. If Grimes was at Geelong, he'd be spoken of in the same terms as Selwood. - Yes, we haven't seen the best of them. Or do you think they have all plateaued? And you may be conveniently ignoring that Blease was bottom age and missed significant amounts of development time because of injury, something none of those other 3 players were or have done. - It's subjective, but I'd keep Trengove over Martin. We don't know what we'll get for the Scully compo picks, so we don't know if we'd prefer Butcher. As for Scully himself, you're using a crystal ball that we didn't have back in 2009 when every single other club would have chosen Scully as a "can't-miss" prospect over Butcher. Don't try to re-write history. - Yes, Bastinac is a "gun". With time and development, I think Gysberts will eventually have much greater influence over a football match. Either way, it is not clear cut. - Gawn -- we needed a ruckman. More than we needed another KPF. It's that simple. And it's like bringing up Fyfe as an example of a missed opportunity - no other team knew he was going to develop so well, so quickly. Sydney took a punt and it paid off.

This is true, but you also need to know where to spend the money. I'm not sure the football dept last year would've known what to do with it. I imagine the full effect of the expenditure won't be properly felt for a few seasons.

You sure it hasn't already been taken out? My guess is that it would've been. No offence, but as much as you may have similar experience with a leg injury, I'm willing to back the medical department's expert judgment on this. And if he's playing VFL, he's up to playing AFL. You only return via VFL to find form or to manage minutes played, not to ease in and manage injuries.

I wouldn't.

I did. I skimmed and concentrated on the players you said you'd take instead. But I don't agree with some of your assessments, and I think you may have provided evidence that contradicts the point you were trying to make.

Good point. I remember before quitting that NC insisted the Crows weren't far off where they needed to be. He could have been dead right.

But he didn't do that, and didn't propose to do that. He was worried someone else in the game MIGHT.

Funnily enough, it was suggested we used that very tactic in the 1st round...

Yet no one knows exactly what was said, because it's all 2nd hand from Mifsud...

- Everyone missed Fyfe, even Freo the 1st time around - not convinced Shuey will be better than Blease - Nor NicNat over Watts - Morton is injured - Scully was consensus number 1, but even still he is irrelevant as he is gone -- wait and see what we get with the compo picks Plus all the players are still developing. Some have shown their hand, others have not, but you do not draft a player for the player they will be in their first 3 years. Some are even 5-7 year propositions.

The type of culture where supporters bring up this entirely irrelevant piece as some sort of justification for the state of our list?

Listening to 5AA it was described as thus: - Sylvia standing under the ball waiting for it to get to him - Butcher coming in late - Butcher may or may not have had eyes for the footy - Sylvia crunched. Late. - Demons players remonstrate - Boak comes running in like a superhero

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/sacking-of-adelaide-recruiter-matt-rendell-wont-solve-racism-problem/story-e6frf9jf-1226301992755 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/adelaide-recruiter-matt-rendell-quits-over-racism-row/story-e6frf9jf-1226301482027

I don't think any news sources actually know. It's all second-hand from Mifsud.

Was it all about physical make-up? Surely in light of the recent incident with Jurrah, it was commentary based on culture rather than physiology?

I don't see it that way at all. I think he said that the way we are going, in the very near future WE (as a sport) wouldn't be recruiting players from a solely indigenous background, without some sort of white influence. Not that it is necessarily a correct view, but that it could be taken. Not that he or the Adelaide Crows refused to recruit an indigenous player, but that a culture was being developed where some clubs could adopt that attitude in the future. That that was the way the game was heading, and it was a shame. The way I see it, ironically, Rendell was actually concerned about statements being made, just like those he is being accused of having actually made.