Ironically, having in the past been a big defender I'm far more in the "sack Dodorro" camp than I used to be. Problem is I don't know to what degree he sets the list management goals, versus the head coach/CEO/Board, and he's just responsible for implementing them. But our list management strategy has got it very wrong (partly with hindsight of course).
im interested to hear how our list management has been bad, i think its been quite good, especially the past two drafts
Just focussing on the last three years, and assuming there was nothing to be done to keep Crameri/Ryder/Melksham/Carlisle and that he can't foresee injuries (e.g. Belly's contract for output was overs, but he couldn't predict the injury). This does assume hindsight - but that is what we're paying people for. To make the right call at the right time. As I said, I don't know who set the direction and that may not have been Dodorro. But these are the problems the list has had.
Failed to get value on the Crameri trade.
Failed to get value on the Ryder trade.
Only took 2 kids in the national draft in both of 2013 and 2014.
Approach of taking older players such as Chapman, Cooney, Gwilt and Giles in 2013 and 2014.
Failing to identify Giles wasn't good enough.
Extended Kommer's contract by two years in 2013 (so it ended in 2016).
Gave Pears a two year contract in 2013.
Failed to identify that Dalgiesh, NOB, Kav, Hams, Browne, Stein, Aylett weren't up to it sooner.
Getting us into a position where with Carlisle's defection, we literally had only 4 KP players on the main list - which includes Pears.
The Edwards/Aylett deal. One of them needs to make it to justify it.
Convincing Connor McKenna to select Essendon.
Any others from a list management (non-drafting) point of view?
I think that's a really harsh and surprisingly blinkered assessment.
Were we in any position (due to external pressures and climate at the time) to get value for Crameri/Ryder?
Taking issue with only taking kids for the last few drafts is a complete hindsight call. What you're saying is that the club was in no position to take mature age players because the club was nowhere near challenging at the time - I think that would be a very debatable position.
Did we get value for Melksham?
Did we get value for Carlisle?
Hasn't Giles been picked up by this years Runners Up to fill a gap in their list?
You could argue that the club should have cut more borderline players earlier. But you could also argue that doing so may well have completely broken an already very vulnerable group of people.
Geez. They haven't got everything right. But I think they made sound decisions a lot of the time with the information that was available at the time.