Ahh proverbs, the original memes.
There are so many assumptions in your response that make me laugh.
- I’m not upset (I’m actually laughing)
- I wish I was young
- I’m moderately edgy (French vanilla)
- I’m moderately intelligent
But anyway. Honestly, you are giving this far to much attention. I’m not sure why.
I’m not interested in having an articulate debate on blitz about political correctness and the state of the world. I go to the Quillette for that (highly recommend to blitzers).
I’m come to blitz to lid off and fark Carlton.
Suggest we let it go. I really can’t be bothered and as I said I only wanted to bring my opinion of a stupid cliche to the attention of Catherine as an off the cuff opportunity.
And just for good measure.
Your “red herrings” are my responses to what else was going on. I mean, was Dodoro’s first 3 round 1 picks being lost to sanctions, #18 and #17 somehow something I made up? Other bits I obviously can’t prove, but has been taken as “truth” on Blitz for a long time (the budget cuts/focus on profit, Sheedy’s involvement in recruiting). To just write it off as red herrings is your call, but if you ask for evidence and chuck out evidence provided, well that is your call.
I definitely rate Judkins as one of the best in the business back then, what he did for Collingwood was also strong. That said, he had better picks at both teams than Dodoro did.
On Geelong, I’d point out:
- Wells was clearly the #1 drafter of that period. I’ve consistently maintained if we can get a top 2-3 recruiter in over Dodoro, show him the door.
- During key years leading up to the 2007 premiership, they had better picks. Across 1999 to 2004 they had 4 top 10 picks to our 2, and of our best picks came from two of the weaker drafts on record (2002 & 2003). Obviously they also nailed their 2007 pick (Selwood) who contributed immediately as well.
- Their list management was rubbish. Think about this – if other clubs had not poached Bizzell, Mansfield and Colbert, they don’t have Mooney, Chapman, Enright, and Kelly for the 2007 flag. Other clubs forced them into a rebuild that they reaped the rewards from. They were actually trying to top up – guys like Kingsley, Grgic, and Mitchell White. Doesn’t matter how good Wells was (and he was good), no picks would have meant no players. They did do two good/great deals in Ottens and Harley, and got value when guys were poached. That’s about the only things their list management did well.
- They had a great run with F/S picks. Scarlett, Ablett x2, Blake. That wasn’t list management, that was luck.
- They didn’t have two of their best picks (Winders, Laycock) become injury prone. If that happens to several of their guys, they probably still win the premiership, but it becomes tougher. N. Ablett was partly in this boat.
- Their development was a lot better. They got a lot out of their youngsters, and didn’t have defections (like Richards, Jacobs for us).
I’ve been clear that I think the trade out older quality is the way to go, as Geelong was forced to, and Hawthorn did deliberately. Essendon won’t do that. I don’t know how much is Dodoro vs. the board vs. coaches, but we do know when the board had the choice, they chose the coach who said he wouldn’t trade out older stars. It seems obvious EFC pushed for the saga guys to return. I’ve said before – if Dodoro pushed all that, he should be sacked.
On Hawthorn, by my count they drafted 18 of their team during the period you mentioned (99-08), of which 6 were drafted before our first pick in their drafts (Hodge, Roughead, Franklin, Lewis, Ellis, Ladson). Critically, many of those 6 were integral parts of their team. They had lots of picks (and good ones) due to trading out players (I’ve discussed above) and priority picks. If not for injuries, I’d have said Ryder, Laycock, Winderlich, Stanton, Dyson, Richards, Hille, Welsh, Monfries, Pears would have all been strong candidates to replace individual players, and Houli, Dempsey and Davey would have been on the fringes (depending on how fast they developed under Clarkson).
There were a lot of not particularly great players in that side. I’d give a lot of credit to Clarkson for the 2008 flag.
How do you suggest Dodoro could have done a deal like the entry of Fremantle made to get the Lloyd/Lucas picks? We also got top 5 picks for Wanganeen leaving (not something we initiated) and finishing bottom 4 (1997). Hardly opportunities Dodoro could replicate. And the 2000 side had a number of zoned players, so it was still relevant.
On injuries, the fact some previous teams from the pre-draft era won despite them hardly means they don’t affect the draft results. Hird being injured probably cost us the 1999 flag, so seems pretty damn relevant!
We have different views on Laycock and Winders. Oh well. I certainly never put them in the Neale Daniher/Hird class though. Again, please stop saying I said things I didn’t.
I used the current situation as an example of the principle, since I thought it would be uncontentious. The principle then applies throughout the past 17 years.
Of course you should keep average players if you’re trying to compete. It makes good sense. I’ve said all along it is a good strategy if you want to compete, but bad for list development. My belief/suspicion is that this comes from above Dodoro’s pay grade - as it should. The board and coach would decide if we’re challenging in a given year, not the list manager.
Or do you think Dodoro should be able to overrule Worsfold and the board if his views on our list for 2018/19 differ?
You say “IF our coaching, development, fitness, supplements etc were the major factors in the decline then the evidence of this would have been players succeeding elsewhere.”. This is again bad logic. A player spending years under a bad system may be wrecked for life. But the fact that another club still rates them means at least one other club rates the talent and the potential.
But we obviously have a different view on how to measure a recruiter’s success with picks.
BTW, when you say “even if we would have at a minimum won a final in that period it still doesn’t change the fact that we’d already gone through an extended period of not winning finals”, you seem to be ignoring that we were going through the bottom of the cycle. Or maybe you’re a believer in a team always finishing in the finals for ever more?
Look, I really don’t think we’re going to see eye to eye here. You seem to think that Dodoro had responsibility and leeway for every element of list management, strategy, recruiting, team retention and development over the last 18 years. So it’s completely reasonable for you to want Dodoro out in that context. It’s just terrible logic.
It’s the equivalent of blaming the one person of management for results not to your liking when they follow the strategy and approach set by the board. It is a company board that sets culture, strategy, approves budgets, sets risk tolerances, yet you want the Human Resources manager to take the blame for everything that goes wrong with the company. Now, Dodoro’s role is more important than a head of HR – but do you really think it’s a role that has a bigger say than the board/CEO/head coach?
I also resent you saying “You can’t actually identify the person or people who are ultimately responsible for the outcomes but maintain its not the most obvious candidate” when I keep saying, its most likely the board and head coaches making the decisions. The people who should be setting our strategy.
Importance of recruiting
I agree that list management is critical. If you don’t recruit good players, it’s hard for any other part of the team management to fix it. However, that doesn’t mean the reverse is true. Just because we haven’t had success, doesn’t mean that the recruiting wasn’t above average. Other factors play a part in the success of a draftee.
[quote]Lastly, I’ve given you draft analysis of picks we’ve had, I’ve compared numbers to other clubs, taken apart their success & showed where we failed by comparison. I believe I’ve presented an evidence based case to strongly support that not only have we performed poorly but that Dodoro had to have played some part in those outcomes. You’ve countered with some pretty feeble excuses, diversions & theories.
I’m the one putting out evidence, talking about draft picks. You’ve mentioned Hawthorn and Geelong, two of the start performers of the past two decades. While appearing to ignore that I’ve said if we can poach one of the top few guys, go for it over Dodoro. I’ve presented plenty of evidence, you just want to ignore it or downplay it.
Because I’ve done it heaps of times before listing out picks, and who came after. Listing out the number of picks we had in the top 5/10 versus premiership teams. I’ve pointed out that other clubs still rate our talent to recruit our guys.
I’ve done a lot more than point at Geelong and Hawthorn and gone “they did it”.
Blame it on Dodoro, Sheedy or whoever you like , What is undeniable is that we have been, at best a mediocre side since 2000.
Everyone seems to think that the club will come back strong next year with Langford and Laverde leading the way. I hope that they are right but so far I have seen nothing in their form so far to suggest that they will be more than good average footballers.
With Watson gone where is the improvement going to come from? We have a very very good forward line and thats it. Our mid and backs are average.
Dodoro has admitted that the clubs has a “draft and develop” approach.This is living in the past. Free agency has meant that teams that buy the elite player to fill the deficiencies in their side have immediate success whilst clubs that rely solely on the draft never catch up.
We will always be a mediocre side until we change our recruiting policy and aggressively go after all the out-of-contract elite players that we need to build a competitive side.
If you are correct, then tell me who besides Eddie Betts have Adelaide traded to get to top, and what about the Tigers.
While Hawthorn did well with bringing in Lake and Gibson and some others, the core was developed from within.
Jacobs, Jenkins, Brown, Crouch and Lynch?
The tiger traded a top 10 pick and a second round pick for Prestia and Caddy last year.
At a glance, the teams that played on the weekend…
Adelaide traded for…
B Crouch as a 17 year old.
Sam Jacobs (was at Carlton).
T Lynch (was at Saints)
Eddie Betts (Carlton)
the rest were drafted and developed.
Richmond traded for…
Nankervis (was at Swans)
Grigg (was at Carlton)
the rest were drafted and developed.
Both teams have been aggressive in trade period.
Compared to us…
Thank you all for the instant information
EFC has a habit of trading in players that would comfortably fit in the 18-30th best on the list. Crameri, potentially, will be another perfect example.
Successful clubs trade in players that are considered in their best 15. They get deals done. They take risks.
Mark my words, like it or not, with free agency the AFL will soon be like the EPL. The clubs that wake up to this and are proactive will be the successful clubs going forward.
Except that little salary cap thing
To restrict the amount of money an employee can be paid is a restraint of trade. The AFL the same way they had to bring in free agency will eventually be forced to change their cap policy…
The AFL could argue that it’s restraint of trade for them if clubs like GWS , Sydney and the Queensland teams cant field a side.
I simply don’t get the blind faith and support of Dodoro. Our record since 2001 would suggest his approach and strategies has been an unmitigated disaster. Look at the facts don’t make excuses.
How do you rate the talant on our list at the moment?
Would you consider it better than a pass mark considering the last 7 years?
I was a bit surprised in the number of players Adelaide traded in. They have very good drafting and very good development principles. They have also been good for the past decade.
Richmond have been poor to average for a decade but after some aggressive trading and a football department change, they really surprised everyone.
Not sure about that foxyjim.
It has been argued that the Draft is a restraint of trade and Rugby League do not have one due to a challenge along those lines years ago. But salary caps are very different, as Players have a choice and can negotiate a salary.
The Draft gives no choice and hence the restraint.
At the moment they can only negotiate within the confines of the cap.
No team will risk going at the AFL for restraint of trade. They’ll be punished for bringing the game into disrepute.
No player would risk going at the AFL for restraint of trade. The individual will be punished for bringing the game into disrepute and will be suspended during the time of the court trial (which could go for more than 1 year).
The AFLPA won’t go at the AFL for restraint of trade because they more of a portion of the AFL than they are the players.
It is a sport. Just like every other sport, there are rules.