Moved Thread Adrian Dodoro - Lodged a dispute with FairWork. Paid out. Gone. #putoutyourjackets

[Happyskeret]

Michael Hibbard

My bad I meant Michael.

 

[Happyskeret]

Thanks for the update. I forgot about Ted and Bachar.

 

[jdBombers3598]

That's a level that's very hard to foresee, due to we never got to see a lot of the players play to their true potential.

But take this current side for example. Imo it's good enough to be a top 6 side. Yet will finish well outside the 8.
That's partly due to poor management of players. The coach has been playing guys out of position, tall sides in the wet, not playing deserving players at all. He's playing a forward press, that gives the forwards no space to work into. That hurts the forwards, and then the defenders on transion.

All those things have hurt this group of players this year imo.
It's a common theme every year. Good sides that have underperformed due to our coaching etc.

Top 6

Our list is absolute garbage, we're as far away as any club in the comp

 

[TBDons1989]

Jobe's Brownlow aside, this is shit.

This photo is actually a bit misleading, and honestly not a metric that Essendon does poorly on (in fact, only Sydney, Adelaide and Port have recruited more players than Essendon from 2006 onwards that have subsequently got one or more AA jumpers). See below:

Sydney: 12 (Josh Kennedy, Hanneberry, Buddy Franklin, Nick Smith, Luke Parker, Rampe, Tom Mitchell, Tom Papley, Aliir Aliir, Callum Mills, Jordan Dawson, Errol Gulden)
Port: 11 (Boak, Robbie Gray, Chad Wingard, Paddy Ryder, Charlie Dixon, Byrne-Jones, Aliir Aliir, Ollie Wines, Rozee, Butters, Houston)
Adelaide: 11 (Dangerfield, Daniel Talia, Brodie Smith, Rory Sloane, Rory Laird, Matt Crouch, Charlie Cameron, Jordan Dawson, Taylor Walker, Tyson Stengle, Jake Lever)
Geelong: 9 (Selwood, Dangerfield, Cameron, Hawkins, Stewart, Tim Kelly, Cam Guthrie, Blicavs, Stengle)
GWS: 9 (Cameron, Toby Greene, Josh Kelly, Dylan Shiel, Sam Docherty, Lachie Whitfield, Nick Haynes, Sam Taylor, Jack Steele)
Essendon: 9 (Heppell, Hooker, Hurley, Merrett, Parish, Daniher, Saad, Hibberd, Houli).
Richmond: 8 (Cotchin, Rance, Riewoldt, Martin, Houli, Edwards, Grimes, Bolton)
WCE: 8 (Nic Nat, Priddis, McGovern, Yeo, Gaff, Burn, Darling, Liam Ryan)

Etc etc (in case people are interested, North and St Kilda are last with only 3).

It's dumb posts like that Instagram one that can then create the perception that Dodoro is being unfairly scapegoated. Put a photo of some dejected players up, and whack some numbers under it that look bad with minimal context, and away you go.

There are legitimate criticisms that can be made about list build in terms of list balance, but to suggest that we haven't been good at picking AA-level talent over the past 15-20 years is wrong. The numbers quite simply prove it to be false. A ratio of close to 1/20 for AAs is actually better than average when you factor in failure rates across rookie draft, mid-season draft, later rounds of national draft, etc, and the fact that on average an AFL player only plays ~25-30 games - skewed downwards by ).

Ironically, the valid criticism is probably the reverse: we have overly prioritized picking the best available player who could individually be AA-standard at the expense of building a balanced list, and we have picked players who play very similar roles in Hooker, Carlisle, Hurley, meaning that we've had to try to reinvent them.

For me the biggest issue is that the individuals in the team are so inconsistent, and when one player is firing others aren't. E.g imagine having late 2021 Stringer, 2022 2MP and 2023 Langford going at the same time with 2021 Parish, 2023 Redman and this year's Merrett, Caldwell, Martin and Durham? Instead when one of them is having an AA-quality season the others are MIA. It's been the same for 15 years (eg Heppell/Hooker/Hurley were rarely all performing at their best at the same time). Good quality teams have players like your Brodie Mihocek/Jack Gunston/James Rowbottom/Shannon Hurn types from whom you always know what you're going to get. I don't think we have had one of those in the past 15 years (though admittedly winning makes those players a lot more noticeable, so it's a bit chicken-egg).

 

[Call Me Cake]

Top 6

Our list is absolute garbage, we're as far away as any club in the comp

Didn't you say Bombers and Hawks were bottom 4 teams at the start of the season?

 

[Here_we_come]

This photo is actually a bit misleading, and honestly not a metric that Essendon does poorly on (in fact, only Sydney, Adelaide and Port have recruited more players than Essendon from 2006 onwards that have subsequently got one or more AA jumpers). See below:

Sydney: 12 (Josh Kennedy, Hanneberry, Buddy Franklin, Nick Smith, Luke Parker, Rampe, Tom Mitchell, Tom Papley, Aliir Aliir, Callum Mills, Jordan Dawson, Errol Gulden)
Port: 11 (Boak, Robbie Gray, Chad Wingard, Paddy Ryder, Charlie Dixon, Byrne-Jones, Aliir Aliir, Ollie Wines, Rozee, Butters, Houston)
Adelaide: 11 (Dangerfield, Daniel Talia, Brodie Smith, Rory Sloane, Rory Laird, Matt Crouch, Charlie Cameron, Jordan Dawson, Taylor Walker, Tyson Stengle, Jake Lever)
Geelong: 9 (Selwood, Dangerfield, Cameron, Hawkins, Stewart, Tim Kelly, Cam Guthrie, Blicavs, Stengle)
GWS: 9 (Cameron, Toby Greene, Josh Kelly, Dylan Shiel, Sam Docherty, Lachie Whitfield, Nick Haynes, Sam Taylor, Jack Steele)
Essendon: 9 (Heppell, Hooker, Hurley, Merrett, Parish, Daniher, Saad, Hibberd, Houli).
Richmond: 8 (Cotchin, Rance, Riewoldt, Martin, Houli, Edwards, Grimes, Bolton)
WCE: 8 (Nic Nat, Priddis, McGovern, Yeo, Gaff, Burn, Darling, Liam Ryan)

Etc etc (in case people are interested, North and St Kilda are last with only 3).

It's dumb posts like that Instagram one that can then create the perception that Dodoro is being unfairly scapegoated. Put a photo of some dejected players up, and whack some numbers under it that look bad with minimal context, and away you go.

There are legitimate criticisms that can be made about list build in terms of list balance, but to suggest that we haven't been good at picking AA-level talent over the past 15-20 years is wrong. The numbers quite simply prove it to be false. A ratio of close to 1/20 for AAs is actually better than average when you factor in failure rates across rookie draft, mid-season draft, later rounds of national draft, etc, and the fact that on average an AFL player only plays ~25-30 games - skewed downwards by ).

Ironically, the valid criticism is probably the reverse: we have overly prioritized picking the best available player who could individually be AA-standard at the expense of building a balanced list, and we have picked players who play very similar roles in Hooker, Carlisle, Hurley, meaning that we've had to try to reinvent them.

For me the biggest issue is that the individuals in the team are so inconsistent, and when one player is firing others aren't. E.g imagine having late 2021 Stringer, 2022 2MP and 2023 Langford going at the same time with 2021 Parish, 2023 Redman and this year's Merrett, Caldwell, Martin and Durham? Instead when one of them is having an AA-quality season the others are MIA. It's been the same for 15 years (eg Heppell/Hooker/Hurley were rarely all performing at their best at the same time). Good quality teams have players like your Brodie Mihocek/Jack Gunston/James Rowbottom/Shannon Hurn types from whom you always know what you're going to get. I don't think we have had one of those in the past 15 years (though admittedly winning makes those players a lot more noticeable, so it's a bit chicken-egg).

This is actually not a very meaningful stat. What you’ve done here is selectively chosen the stat of number of AA players per team, whereas a more important stat is number of AA awards per team. If you actually examine the number of AAs awarded, then the successful teams like Geelong, Sydney, Richmond, Hawthorn, Collingwood etc all start to pile up at the top.

There is a big difference between multiple AA players like Martin, Selwood, and even Merrett and single AA players like parish. Teams that have more of the former will tend to be better because those players are better.

 

[Foxx]

I think you’re massively overrating the list.

One of the reasons we have to play players out of position is because we have holes in the list that we need to cover for. That’s on Dodo.

We still don’t really have a good key forward (Caddy isn’t there despite promising signs). We still don’t have a good big bodied mid (and haven’t since Watson retired in 2017) and so coaches are forced to have players like Stringer try and fill the void.

This has been going on years as well. Our lack of tall forwards often meant we were forced to play our best defenders like Hooker/Hurley up forward.

You’re happy to lay the blame with Scott, but we’ve had 5 other coaches since Sheedy and all of them had similar issues.

We have been playing key position talls on the wings, while Martin is playing in defence and Duursma was playing half forward. And the young fella was killing it in the VFL all year. That's not because of holes in the squad. That's bad coaching strategy/structure.

Durham isnt a big bodied mid?

I think we've had enough good players in every position over Dodoros tenure. We just haven't developed them or used them properly. Or they've left. Yes we've had holes. Every side does. But almost all his sides have underperformed.
Including this one that should have been a top 8 side. But our coach is a spud.

 

[crackers65]

I don’t think the coach is a spud, but we have too many spuds on the list.

 

[Foxx]

I don’t think the coach is a spud, but we have too many spuds on the list.

Why would a coach play a forward press with a side that doesn't have good enough small forwards to compliment it? And also play key position wingman that can't help the midfielders on opposition transition?

 

[TBDons1989]

This is actually not a very meaningful stat. What you’ve done here is selectively chosen the stat of number of AA players per team, whereas a more important stat is number of AA awards per team. If you actually examine the number of AAs awarded, then the successful teams like Geelong, Sydney, Richmond, Hawthorn, Collingwood etc all start to pile up at the top.

There is a big difference between multiple AA players like Martin, Selwood, and even Merrett and single AA players like parish. Teams that have more of the former will tend to be better because those players are better.

Oh absolutely - I did that analysis too, but it doesn't change it as much as you think it would. Absolutely Geelong are a massive outlier (27AAs in the relevant period, followed by Port and Richmond at 18 and 17), but after that we're still firmly middle of the pack at 12 (and above teams like Hawthorn, Freo and even Brisbane).

Also, to be clear, the only point I'm making is that the initial graphic was misleading and shit. I obviously agree Geelong, Richmond and Hawthorn have been way better than us (both in performance and list build), and I don't really have strong views one way or another on Dodoro. I think we're probably in agreement: these stats can be pretty meaningless and therefore it's fairly pointless using them in either direction (ie we have more AAs than Brisbane therefore Dodoro isn't bad OR we have 9 AAs out of 191 therefore he's shit). Either way it's a dumb argument. That's my point.

 

[Schnitzengruben]

Whoever drafted Tsatas (who can't kick) into our midfield (who also can't kick) has evidently demonstrated they don't understand what our team needs, and where the game is going.

That is a sackable offence in itself. I'd be moving on RFK and anyone else Dodo had under his thumb during his tenure.

 

[Agronomus]

Well this post aged well…

Depends on what your expectations for this year was going be.

 

[bomberlegend2007]

Why would a coach play a forward press with a side that doesn't have good enough small forwards to compliment it? And also play key position wingman that can't help the midfielders on opposition transition?

Because it’s easier to embed a game plan and change the personal that are needed. I think there is signs Scott’s game plan can work, we just need to cattle to do it.

 

[lenny2013]

Dodo on personal leave, Sheedy stepping down.

The boys club might be coming under pressure.

 

[Mercurial89]

Dodo on personal leave, Sheedy stepping down.

The boys club might be coming under pressure.

They will be back, and in greater numbers.

 

[ant555]

Whoever drafted Tsatas (who can't kick) into our midfield (who also can't kick) has evidently demonstrated they don't understand what our team needs, and where the game is going.

That is a sackable offence in itself. I'd be moving on RFK and anyone else Dodo had under his thumb during his tenure.

You would have to say the pressure is RFK now as well. Looks like they got last years draft right but with O'Brien working under him in recruiting now you would think he would be evaluating how things are going and Vozzo would have a direct line on it.

 

[Nifft]

They will be back, and in greater numbers.

So what you're saying is that the club has herpes?

 

[Here_we_come]

Oh absolutely - I did that analysis too, but it doesn't change it as much as you think it would. Absolutely Geelong are a massive outlier (27AAs in the relevant period, followed by Port and Richmond at 18 and 17), but after that we're still firmly middle of the pack at 12 (and above teams like Hawthorn, Freo and even Brisbane).

Also, to be clear, the only point I'm making is that the initial graphic was misleading and shit. I obviously agree Geelong, Richmond and Hawthorn have been way better than us (both in performance and list build), and I don't really have strong views one way or another on Dodoro. I think we're probably in agreement: these stats can be pretty meaningless and therefore it's fairly pointless using them in either direction (ie we have more AAs than Brisbane therefore Dodoro isn't bad OR we have 9 AAs out of 191 therefore he's shit). Either way it's a dumb argument. That's my point.

I don't understand where you're getting your numbers from. The image referred to the year 2005. Here are the number of AAs for each of those teams since 2005:

Geelong - 61 AAs
West Coast - 41 AAs
Sydney - 36 AAs
Collingwood - 36 AAs
Bulldogs - 32 AAs
Hawthorn - 30 AAs
Richmond - 26 AAs
Port - 26 AAs
Adelaide - 23 AAs
Freo - 21 AAs

And then:
Essendon - 13 AAs (1 was Fletcher and 3 others were father sons in Jobe and Daniher).

the only other team we're really better than is North, who had 11 AAs over the same period.

I haven't counted GWS or GC since they entered later.

 

[BrunoV]

Whoever drafted Tsatas (who can't kick) into our midfield (who also can't kick) has evidently demonstrated they don't understand what our team needs, and where the game is going.

That is a sackable offence in itself. I'd be moving on RFK and anyone else Dodo had under his thumb during his tenure.

The 36 year veteran, acolyte of Kevin Sheedy who can't articulate or doesn't understand why a big body in the middle is important, in my view clearly because he doesn't watch or see what happens to get the ball from inside to out - he only prioritises the break away, who thinks Cox being able to kick a left foot set shot helps a side win a football match, who saw an elite player in Jordan Houlihan, who celebrated the use of a second round pick on Mosquito, and who has missed every trend in footy has been imbuing our next generation of recruiters and list managers with his wisdom.

I want to be able to say that while we might not have recruited midfielders who can kick the ball, we are at least blessed with hardball specialists who can smash any team in tight or monster 2-way players. But what did dip**** select, a group of loose ball get specialists who don't even have decent running power? What a combination!

 

[TBDons1989]

I don't understand where you're getting your numbers from. The image referred to the year 2005. Here are the number of AAs for each of those teams since 2005:

Geelong - 61 AAs
West Coast - 41 AAs
Sydney - 36 AAs
Collingwood - 36 AAs
Bulldogs - 32 AAs
Hawthorn - 30 AAs
Richmond - 26 AAs
Port - 26 AAs
Adelaide - 23 AAs
Freo - 21 AAs

And then:
Essendon - 13 AAs (1 was Fletcher and 3 others were father sons in Jobe and Daniher).

the only other team we're really better than is North, who had 11 AAs over the same period.

I haven't counted GWS or GC since they entered later.

You misread the image: it says clearly players recruited since 2005 (dunno why they picked that year, but the original poster did for some reason - possibly because the numbers look worse once you exclude Jobe). So eg Hawthorn recruited Buddy, Roughhead, Mitchell, Lewis, Hodge etc before 2005, Bulldogs with Bob Murphy, Lindsay Gilbee etc etc.

Again, not disputing all those teams have had more AAs than us since 2005, and are clearly better teams than us, and have clearly had better lists than us. I think you think I'm making an argument I'm not.

I'm just responding to the figures put forward in the initial photo: if the argument is that 9/191 players recruited since 2005 going on to become AA is some sort of dismal record, that is not true. Obviously I agree that we've obviously never in that time drafted an 8-time AA like Dangerfield, or that our recruiting prior to 2005 might also have been average. I'm literally just responding to the initial photo, which was incorrect. If they had simply posted a list of All-Australians since 2005 like you had, there would be no disagreement. But that's not what it said.

 

[BrunoV]

I don't understand where you're getting your numbers from. The image referred to the year 2005. Here are the number of AAs for each of those teams since 2005:

Geelong - 61 AAs
West Coast - 41 AAs
Sydney - 36 AAs
Collingwood - 36 AAs
Bulldogs - 32 AAs
Hawthorn - 30 AAs
Richmond - 26 AAs
Port - 26 AAs
Adelaide - 23 AAs
Freo - 21 AAs

And then:
Essendon - 13 AAs (1 was Fletcher and 3 others were father sons in Jobe and Daniher).

the only other team we're really better than is North, who had 11 AAs over the same period.

I haven't counted GWS or GC since they entered later.

Yeah, but we'd have more AAs if we were a good team! That's not his fault, he just put the teams together!

 

[Here_we_come]

You misread the image: it says clearly players recruited since 2005 (dunno why they picked that year, but the original poster did for some reason - possibly because the numbers look worse once you exclude Jobe). So eg Hawthorn recruited Buddy, Roughhead, Mitchell, Lewis, Hodge etc before 2005, Bulldogs with Bob Murphy, Lindsay Gilbee etc etc.

Again, not disputing all those teams have had more AAs than us since 2005, and are clearly better teams than us, and have clearly had better lists than us. I think you think I'm making an argument I'm not.

I'm just responding to the figures put forward in the initial photo: if the argument is that 9/191 players recruited since 2005 going on to become AA is some sort of dismal record, that is not true. Obviously I agree that we've obviously never in that time drafted an 8-time AA like Dangerfield, or that our recruiting prior to 2005 might also have been average. I'm literally just responding to the initial photo, which was incorrect. If they had simply posted a list of All-Australians since 2005 like you had, there would be no disagreement. But that's not what it said.

Ok, that's fair enough.

I agree 2005 is an arbitrary number and if we were to do this properly it should go back to when Dodo started in 1998.

 

[BrunoV]

Ok, that's fair enough.

I agree 2005 is an arbitrary number and if we were to do this properly it should go back to when Dodo started in 1998.

2007 should be the cut off. It is the first draft in which we had a more modern structure with Dodoro overseeing recruiting as list boss as opposed to what happened earlier when responsibility is a little hard to sort out.

 

[Here_we_come]

2007 should be the cut off. It is the first draft in which we had a more modern structure with Dodoro overseeing recruiting as list boss as opposed to what happened earlier when responsibility is a little hard to sort out.

I still think 1998 should be the year. That's ultimately when he became in charge of that department and so he should have accountability over the full period. He was getting paid well so it's fair game to assume he should be accountable.

Barring maybe 1999 (by memory), the drafts from 1998 to 2006 were a total disaster. The only AA selected during that period was Jobe.

 

[ant555]

I still think 1998 should be the year. That's ultimately when he became in charge of that department and so he should have accountability over the full period. He was getting paid well so it's fair game to assume he should be accountable.

Barring maybe 1999 (by memory), the drafts from 1998 to 2006 were a total disaster. The only AA selected during that period was Jobe.

No that was when Sheedy pissed off Judkins by interfering and took over . 2007 is the year. It was the first year we had a list manager and recruiting manager and no Sheedy with his fingers in the pie .