So you’re saying we should change for changes sake? Hope we get that one in 18 top 2-3 recruiter, and not a dud that puts us back 5 years? Personally, I think that’s a terrible approach.
My view is that the Keane/Dodorro combination is not a top 1-2 recruiting teams. But I think they do settle just behind that. My beef is with the development teams we’ve had. And I’ve said that for a long time.
Lets not forget that we have lost Ryder, Carslile, Hibberd, Melksham due to the Saga. That 's 2 AA on top of the 3 that still play for us.
You (as in the colloquial “you”) can’t blame a coach for injuries most of the time, so I’m fine with giving him a pass over Fantasia, Green, Begley etc. However, in my view you can absolutely blame them for poor form. It is their job to have the players in the right mental and physical condition to play their best, and get them out of slumps (or avoid them) ASAP.
Good coaches and managers get more out of teams.
i highly doubt any of that has anything to do with it. He seemed very professional in his preparation and application.
Out of interest, of the current recruiting teams, who would you put in say the top 4 and the bottom 4? For guys like Wells and Dodoro who’ve been there for the lifespan of the entire list it’s comparatively easy to have an opinion, but what of the people who’ve been in charge for 3-4 years and so inherited most of their list?
Edit: this is not intended as a way to trick you into an argument about specific draft picks by various clubs, just interested to know the point of view you’re coming from.
I don’t think recruiting is the problem. We have good players on our list and at some stage we’ve seen these players perform. Players that leave our club still go on to perform quite well for their new clubs.
The problem is coaching the players to perform closest to their best every week. The coaches we have aren’t able to get them to perform at the moment. Since Worsfold has been in how many games have we had where everyone has performed to their level? I would say Hawthorn, Geelong, Port and West Coast games last year and maybe Port this year.
I put Adelaide in clear #1 position. Their ability to rejuvenate their list with no F/S picks, limited early picks, and getting targeted by GWS/GCS for players has been phenomenal. Sydney have also been very good, albeit helped by having academy picks and up to recently COLA. Still, staying in the top 5 like they have is fantastic.
Bottom 4 was clearly Carlton with the guy prior to Silvagni. I don’t particularly rate North Melbourne, although its harder to tell with their recent strategy around list development.
On rating Dodoro, I would argue it is not so clear cut. Hence the length of this thread! You have issues of:
All of these things make it tougher rating him, and hence it is not black and white, but very subjective.
Yeah what would have happened? Those who want accountable staff would complain and those that accept failure like yourself would trot out excuses.
Hird spoke pretty glowingly of melk on his podcast. As a person and a trainer. Which translates to his playing
So its subjective but you rate him near the top (just behind the top 2). What subject do you rate him this highly on exactly? Given that every club has the development v pick issue, the same questions about youth v more senior established players & injuries then I’m not seeing how they can even be factors when judging our recruiting & list management against the comp.
If as you say you rate Adelaide & Sydney top 2 that means you are rating Dodoro’s performance at better or on the same level as clubs like Geelong & Hawthorn who have won multiple premierships. Seriously you think thats a somehow reasoned & justifiable position to reach? Can you at least provide some form of methodology you’ve used to reach that conclusion because frankly it reads like lunacy & not just 1 eyed bias but full blown batshte crazy!
Melksham averaged 18.2 disposals in the championships. That was not top mid stats. He absolutely jumped up into contention after the TAC grand final & we thought he was the next Sidebottom.
As for your calls about not getting midfiled time - do you actually watch AFL football & the Essendon football club? I have to ask because you show absolutely no comprehension of not only where we are but where we’ve been. Melksham averaged more disposals & more clearances for us because we played him through the midfield. No he was not the starting ruck rover week after week but he was absolutely given ample opportunity as an onballer rotating off the flanks. For Melbourne he has been played as a forward firstly & not expected to spend much time on the ball because they already have better midfield options. His clearance numbers are well down, his overall disposals are less & he has had minimal defensive 50 rebounds - again because he’s playing as a forward. Right now most would suggest he’s playing his best footy yet he’s getting it less than his 1st year.
Again as I mentioned earlier, we have never had a strong midfield in Melksham’s time hence why when he was forward his opportunities were limited. For whats its worth I think he was one of Dodoro’s better picks as far as talent goes & can can at least see what he was trying to do. That doesn’t change the outcome that Melksham wasn’t the mid we needed.
Well, with Essendon I do allow for items like development, based on what I know and my opinion. With other teams, it depends on how much I know about them. For example, if you take the Melbourne recruiting across 2008 to 2012 odd, I don’t particularly penalise them as I just don’t believe it can be coincidence that so many kids rated by the entire drafting community could turn out to be duds without their development system being shocking. That said, they don’t get a high rating either. For others it depends on looking at the list. For example, Fremantle gets a pass on Morabito, but not on Bennell. GWS gets weighted for the advantages they have.
Obviously, it’s all subjective.
On Geelong and Hawthorn, I assumed we were talking about current recruiting teams. My understanding is that the Hawthorn one there now is not the one that put together the premiership team (I rate that group pretty highly). I think the book is still open on them, we’ll see how that side does or doesn’t come back. The Mitchell trade was a no-brainer, so they don’t get kudos for that from me, and I think the O’Meara trade could set them back.
For Geelong, Hine was obviously pretty damn good in the late 90’s, early 00’s. And he’s continued to make some good late picks. However, I think their list development has been poor recently. That may of course be down to Scott. But I think they got rid of guys like Kelly, S. Johnson, Motlop, Varcoe, and Stokes too quickly, which is at odds with their all or nothing approach to topping up via trading. Their age profile ain’t great. I also don’t consider them particularly responsible for getting Dangerfield and Ablett to nominate them – that’s the luck of their location. So the book is open a little here as well, until we see if they were right or wrong with the approach.
And since I suspect you’ll ask, on Richmond and the Bulldogs I think there were a lot of flaws in both sides. The recruiters had done decent jobs, but the coaching in both situations was the key to getting them over the line. The Bulldogs especially have been found out since, and IMO did a bit of a Leicester City. Richmond’s list is stronger, but how much of that is due to two top 3 picks? They were consensus choices, hardly huge leaps of faith. Rance and Reiwoldt are their two great picks, but really there aren’t too many others that scream at me as being “great” picks. Most of the other players are workman like, and I’m sure if we had Brandon Ellis everyone would be whining that he doesn’t do enough for a #15 pick.
It was known he had a poor champs. He had a great end of season in the TAC cup. So using the Champs is a little misleading. He finished off the year as one of the main movers in his TAC side’s midfield. It wasn’t only the TAC grand final BTW, he had a good end of year.
On your second paragraph, I’m a little confused. I didn’t compare his Melbourne/Essendon stats. I pointed out his best period with us (2013, especially the second half) was as a midfielder, when we had all those injuries, and he got clearances. However, I would definitely argue that most years he didn’t get much midfield time. I think that would be also backed up by Goodwin bringing him across as a forward. Personally, I think Melks was nuts for going to Melbourne, as I think he could have had a good midfield career at a team who gave him a go there. But I suppose we’ll never know now.
On the last bit, we’ve argued over how good or bad the midfield was during that period before (with me pointing out we had some of the best stats for I50 and D50 entries in the league. Must have been luck). So I’ll leave it at that.
Yes using the only exposed form against the best kids in the country is not a good indication. FFS listen to yourself, you are making zero rational posts and simply dribbling out hollow excuses for what should be obvious - Dodoro has failed.
The difference in stats between his time with us and not just 2013 again highlights that Melbourne are using him differently. He averaged more possessions and clearances because we played him on ball a lot more than Melbourne are.
Again you are free to believe our midfield was the best midfield ever. I’m free to think you are clueless and meaningless stats don’t change results. That group didn’t win a final. That group still had a lot of players who did little pre or post Saga. That group had a really solid backline and the best clearance mid the clubs probably ever had. It also some role players that made our midfield combative but found wanting for class particularly outside.
I seemed to recall getting attacked by people on the forum, because I thought our recruitment of a ‘type’ of player is not the way we should be going.
We have too much of the same personality.
Not enough diversity in life experiences, ethnicity, race and social class.
We prefer well behaved, private school kids with leadership capabilities. A team must be built on diversity. There is no way around this.
Melksham playing like Monfries did for a time there at Port. A different beast.
All the recruiting gurus pre draft had Melksham pegged as a midfielder. To suggest otherwise is inventing history. The funniest thing is some laud Z. Merrett as a midfielder but yet pre-draft he was pegged as a half forward who could end up playing midfield minutes.
Death, taxes and Ants and JB arguing over drafting. The 3 constants in life.
Adelaide is the clear #1.
They’ve lost Danger, Lever, Tippett, Gunston, Vince off the top of my head and they still compete for premierships. Great at drafting and developing talent, even better at getting the most out of those they bring in (Jacobs, Betts, Lynch, etc)
They’ve also had three different recruiting managers in the last 10 years (Fantasia until 2010, then Noble until 2014, then Reid). Four coaches in that time period, too. Someone’s consistently appointing good people.