Richmond Vs Carlton round 1 2011

[Dustin Credible]

Re: Richmond v Carltank round 1 2011

No doubt Judd is important, as was demonstrated in the final vs Sydney last year. Given that he's still only 27, and the way he looks after his body, suspect he's got at least 4-5 good seasons left in him.

You maybe right but Judd has never struck me as some-one who would have the capability of playing deep into his thirties (ala R.Harvey). Most players appear to retire aged 30-32, so by that reckoning he's only got 3-5 seasons left in total. In his last seasons will he be at his explosive best? I don't believe so. That will in some respects curtail Carltons window.

In addition if Murphy goes to GWS at the end of this year that would increase Judd's workload and potentially shorten, (through injuries and general wear and tear), his playing time.

Other factors will also come into play:

If,as appears likely, Ratten gets sacked at the end of the year, how long will it take the list to get to grips with a new coaches game plan? I seem to recall a player from the Saints saying it took about 18 months for them to get to grips with Lyons game plan.

It could be that by the time Carlton have got to grips with a new gameplan Judd is well in decline.

Alot of hypotheticals in all that but just because the suggestion comes from the perma-tanned, leather skinned snake oil salesman that is Wallace it doesn't automatically mean it's a crock of s**t.

Alternatively you could stick with Ratten and then you won't have to worry about windows or how long they'll last.

 

[TOOs_Finest]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

Wallace wasn't knocking the Judd deal, he said at the time that it was a deal that had to be done. He is questioning the timing of other deals in the same time frame, which apparently cost Carlton some youth, as did the Judd deal. Of course, that is all debatable til the cows come home.

IMO the part where he speaks shit, is with his unquestioned support for a fellow coach under siege. I just cannot see Ratten being a premiership coach. With the list of players that club has had for the past five years, under a decent coaching group, they could be a feared team by now.

Ironically, IF, and yes it's a large-ish if, we were to get over them in Rd 1, Ratten would be Wallace circa 2009. I can already hear Eddie inserting the daggers on radio as I type...

 

[Rayzorwire]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

I mean, Wallet is really not the best source of advice on list management now is he? I'm surprised he had the gall to even comment.

Deledio, Reiwoldt, Cotchin and Vickery first round, Foley, Edwards, McGuane, Thursfield, Morton, Rance, Connors, Graham, King, Nahas and Browne off our current list from later in the draft, plus Tuck, Moore and Jackson who were borderline delistees when he first took over and basically developed from scratch.

In the decade prior to Wallace we managed Ottens, Pettifer and Schulz as the best of our early draft picks - you're bagging a bloke who oversaw (as much as a coach does in these days of big money recruiting) far and away the best drafting period in our history. The Wallace years were the first where we didn't fail in the draft since its inception and it's the only reason Hardwick has anything to work with.

 

[Bazzar]

Re: Richmond v Carltank round 1 2011

If,as appears likely, Ratten gets sacked at the end of the year,

Interesting on this mornings Rumor File on the 3AW Breaky show, it was said the Tankers are waiting for the return of a well respected ex-coach from the States, where they will then begin discussions.

Deledio, Reiwoldt, Cotchin and Vickery first round, Foley, Edwards, McGuane, Thursfield, Morton, Rance, Connors, Graham, King, Nahas and Browne off our current list from later in the draft, plus Tuck, Moore and Jackson who were borderline delistees when he first took over and basically developed from scratch.

In the decade prior to Wallace we managed Ottens, Pettifer and Schulz as the best of our early draft picks - you're bagging a bloke who oversaw (as much as a coach does in these days of big money recruiting) far and away the best drafting period in our history. The Wallace years were the first where we didn't fail in the draft since its inception and it's the only reason Hardwick has anything to work with.

Ray dont bring common sense into it.

Also, Wallace on the radio tonight said his biggest mistake was to stuff up his first lot of picks when he had the five in the top 20. It was refreshing to hear him shoulder some of the blame.

Also, people are hanging it on him for speaking out about the Tankers, but he has been asked to analyse all the clubs lists, and the Bombers will be tomorrow night. I will be tuning into all these as they will be interesting, and I can’t wait to see his assessment of our current list.

 

[_RT_]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

Deledio, Reiwoldt, Cotchin and Vickery first round, Foley, Edwards, McGuane, Thursfield, Morton, Rance, Connors, Graham, King, Nahas and Browne off our current list from later in the draft, plus Tuck, Moore and Jackson who were borderline delistees when he first took over and basically developed from scratch.

In the decade prior to Wallace we managed Ottens, Pettifer and Schulz as the best of our early draft picks - you're bagging a bloke who oversaw (as much as a coach does in these days of big money recruiting) far and away the best drafting period in our history. The Wallace years were the first where we didn't fail in the draft since its inception and it's the only reason Hardwick has anything to work with.

What about Tambling Meyer Polo Pattison JON the Mcmahon deal Thompson Hislop and no doubt a few others that failed. Why don't you mention that TW was also responsible for them? Oh thats right its because they are all failures.

 

[The Goon]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

Deledio, Reiwoldt, Cotchin and Vickery first round, Foley, Edwards, McGuane, Thursfield, Morton, Rance, Connors, Graham, King, Nahas and Browne off our current list from later in the draft, plus Tuck, Moore and Jackson who were borderline delistees when he first took over and basically developed from scratch.

What about Tambling Meyer Polo Pattison JON the Mcmahon deal Thompson Hislop and no doubt a few others that failed. Why don't you mention that TW was also responsible for them? Oh thats right its because they are all failures.

Of those you list Rayzor, I'd only say that Reiwoldt and Foley were good picks, and that the Morton trade was good (with the potential to be very good). That is, picks/trades that delivered more than you would expect or hope for a player at that pick. Others, such as Delidio and Cotchin were no brainers - if you didn't pick them you'd have had to be a complete imbecile. The rest are a mix of adequate players, some who don't look like they'll make it and ones who the jury is still out on. And as RT said you conveniently ignoring the failures.

If we win a premiership in the next 3 years based largely on the list the Tanned One built, I'll very happily eat my words. Until then I'll reserve my right to think this guy was an imbecile with NFI.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Re: Richmond v Carltank round 1 2011

Also, Wallace on the radio tonight said his biggest mistake was to stuff up his first lot of picks when he had the five in the top 20. It was refreshing to hear him shoulder some of the blame.

I thought he shouldered more than his share of blame at the end and all the way along Baz.

As far as I recall, apart from analysing a few things out loud when he announced his departure, the only excuses he made along the way was an occasional mention that we were too broke to be ultra-competitive (which the current coach is still saying despite having way more resources than Wallace did), and that it was obvious after we lost Brown we didn't have the cattle to challenge in finals until the youngest draftees were playing good football, therefore we could forget about finals for a while.

Hardwick walked into the job fully entitled to both those excuses according to most, I wonder why Wallace is different in the eyes of many? Wallace inherited by far the worse list and had way more finance hassles.

What about Tambling Meyer Polo Pattison JON the Mcmahon deal Thompson Hislop and no doubt a few others that failed. Why don't you mention that TW was also responsible for them?

Because I was addressing whether or not Wallace had built a list using the draft at Richmond - which he clearly did - not whether or not we had some failed draft picks along the way like even the best clubs do.

Of those you list Rayzor, I'd only say that Reiwoldt and Foley were good picks, and that the Morton trade was good (with the potential to be very good). That is, picks/trades that delivered more than you would expect or hope for a player at that pick. Others, such as Delidio and Cotchin were no brainers - if you didn't pick them you'd have had to be a complete imbecile. The rest are a mix of adequate players, some who don't look like they'll make it and ones who the jury is still out on.

As I said, I'm not debating whether we used our draft picks well or not North, I'm saying that it's unfair to criticise the list management abilities of a coach who inherited the worst list in living memory and handed on an infinitely superior group at the right ages to the next coach.

We traded our early picks since the draft began and Wallace put an end to it - the philosophy behind what he did is the best kind of list management and exactly what he was discussing re. Carlton.

If we pick up roughly the same amount and calibre of players in the five years post-Wallace, won't we be in a very good position? A couple of Reiwoldt's, Cotchin's, Foley's etc. all drafted within the same 10yr cycle and all playing together is bad list management?

 

[Dustin Credible]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

Deledio, Reiwoldt, Cotchin and Vickery first round, Foley, Edwards, McGuane, Thursfield, Morton, Rance, Connors, Graham, King, Nahas and Browne off our current list from later in the draft, plus Tuck, Moore and Jackson who were borderline delistees when he first took over and basically developed from scratch.

In the decade prior to Wallace we managed Ottens, Pettifer and Schulz as the best of our early draft picks - you're bagging a bloke who oversaw (as much as a coach does in these days of big money recruiting) far and away the best drafting period in our history. The Wallace years were the first where we didn't fail in the draft since its inception and it's the only reason Hardwick has anything to work with.

If by this, your saying the likes of Walls and Frawley are amongst the worst senior coaches to ever have a job then I would agree. But because in comparison those preceeding him were worse, doesn't make Wallace great.

The big question mark over Wallace, for me, was not just the drafting but also the developmentof these players. As 4 of those mentioned (Riewoldt, Edwards, Connors, Morton) have had their best seasons under Hardwick.

2 are yet to show much (Vickery and Rance). Nahas will soon be delisted. Thursfield, McGuane, King are ordinary. (Though I concede they may become 'role' players esp. king)

Deledio and Cotchin were obvious choices. In fact only Foley stands out as a gem from nowhere (or even outside the top 10).

 

[Bazzar]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

What about Tambling Meyer Polo Pattison JONthe Mcmahon deal Thompson Hislop and no doubt a few others that failed. Why don't you mention that TW was also responsible for them? Oh thats right its because they are all failures.

How much blame does he really have to take? he was only at the club 6 weeks before drafting Tambling Meyer Polo Pattison. What about Miller?

And JON? How can you blame him when allegedly not one person from the football department even saw him play live.

And how many current coaches and their football departments have never made really bad recruiting mistakes?

It’s common knowledge it’s not the sole responsibility of the senior coach to have the final say on draft selection but that of the football department, and as we all know ours was almost non existent.

and as i said before.

Also, Wallace on the radio tonight said his biggest mistake was to stuff up his first lot of picks when he had the five in the top 20. It was refreshing to hear him shoulder some of the blame.

So at least he admits some responsibility that ultimately shouldnt have been his at all.

 

[The Goon]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

If we pick up roughly the same amount and calibre of players in the five years post-Wallace, won't we be in a very good position? A couple of Reiwoldt's, Cotchin's, Foley's etc. all drafted within the same 10yr cycle and all playing together is bad list management?

If by this, your saying the likes of Walls and Frawley are amongst the worst senior coaches to ever have a job then I would agree. But because in comparison those preceeding him were worse, doesn't make Wallace great.

The big question mark over Wallace, for me, was not just the drafting but also the developmentof these players. As 4 of those mentioned (Riewoldt, Edwards, Connors, Morton) have had their best seasons under Hardwick.

2 are yet to show much (Vickery and Rance). Nahas will soon be delisted. Thursfield, McGuane, King are ordinary. (Though I concede they may become 'role' players esp. king)

Deledio and Cotchin were obvious choices. In fact only Foley stands out as a gem from nowhere (or even outside the top 10).

You make a couple of good points Rayzor, especially the last one. But I think we'll need more than just a couple of good players who were obvious picks in the future, the supporting cast needs to be there too. Past poor list aside, the jury's still out on a lot of these players.

Also, as Dunstin says, good list management is both selection and development. You could add King to his list of 'best year' players too.

Ultimately though, Wallace took us from 12th in his first year, to 15th in his last (despite his quitting that year, we were not going anywhere in 2009). Since then we've had to clear out 20+ players. Whatever legitimacy there is in the argument that he inherited a poor list, I don't see a vast improvement in the one we have now compared to 2004. As you say, the only up side is that our better players are now young, instead of in the middle of their careers.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

The big question mark over Wallace, for me, was not just the drafting but also the developmentof these players. As 4 of those mentioned (Riewoldt, Edwards, Connors, Morton) have had their best seasons under Hardwick.

All were coming into their prime in terms of age and body size, and bear in mind Dusty, it's just as easy to say Tambling went backwards dramatically under Hardwick (he went from a very tradeable commodity doing his role well at the end of '09 to virtually worthless in the space of one year), Nahas didn't improve one iota and probably went backwards in truth, Post showed less than he did the year before, McGuane didn't improve, Thursfield went backwards, still put on no weight, White and Moore showed exactly the same as past years, McMahon seemingly didn't even try, Roberts walked out etc....I'm sure there's a number of other examples.

Would it fair to call these Hardwick's 'failures?' Is it all Hardwick's fault, solely the result of poor coaching, or do the other coaches, general circumstances and the player themselves all have *some* bearing on these matters?

Whatever legitimacy there is in the argument that he inherited a poor list, I don't see a vast improvement in the one we have now compared to 2004.

Campbell and Johnson in the twilight of their career, Coughlan with a ruined body and Rodan struggling in the VFL after his knee reconstruction, after that we had no midfielders - not unless you want to count Fiora, Tivendale, Krakouer, Hyde, Fleming and Blumfield.

Hardwick inherited Foley, Tuck, Jackson, Cotchin, Connors, Morton and Edwards, plus the signed and delivered pick for Martin.

Ages aside North, I think you'd agree that those midfield's are a country mile apart in quality when you compare them.

Down back Wallace inherited Gaspar in his twilight, 1/10th the player he was following his knee reconstruction, Hall, Zantuck, and Moore who was on the verge of delistment. He's left us in quite a bit better shape than that by making a player out of Moore when virtually nobody believed it possible, and recruiting McGuane, Thursfield, Rance and Gourdis - none of them stars, but it is a way more functional backline to build on.

He even did the virtually impossible up forward by leaving us with a Coleman Medal replacement for Richo - he even peaked to become a genuine star in the first season after Richo left. For years we said we could never replace Richo, Wallace's list management not only replaced him, it left no gap whatsoever in transition.

All the above are genuinely good things, yet so many attack him mercilessly as if he didn't do a single good thing in his time at the club...

As you say, the only up side is that our better players are now young, instead of in the middle of their careers.

You say that like it's a small and insignificant upside, but really, it's a massive thing - the building blocks of a list with a proper age spread.

When Deledio is 30, if we continue in the manner Wallace and Hardwick have been we should have 8-10 good/star first round draft picks on our list rather than the four we currently have, or the two (Schulz and Pettifer) Wallace inherited.

Foley or Jackson possibly still there, Deledio at 30, Reiwoldt, Connors, Morton and Edwards at 28, Cotchin at 27, Martin and Astbury at 25, Conca at 24 etc. - now put another seven years of draft picks below them and you can see the crucial importance of good age spread in building a list that can genuinely challenge for a flag.

 

[_RT_]

Re: Richmond v Carltank round 1 2011

Because I was addressing whether or not Wallace had built a list using the draft at Richmond - which he clearly did - not whether or not we had some failed draft picks along the way like even the best clubs do.

Again I beg to differ. In TW's time we drafted:
Deledio Tambling Meyer Pattison Polo McGuane Limbach Graham Knobel Thursfield JON Hughes Casserley White Graham Humm Howat Riewoldt Edwards Connors Peterson Collins Kingsley Clingan King Cotchin Rance Putt Gourdis Collard Silvester Cartledge Howat (again) Vickery Post Hislop Cousins Nahas Gourdis(again) Browne & Gilligan.

16.5(given Collins a half point seeing as he has been traded and could still be a sollid player) out of 41 is not what I would call successfully building a list.

Add to that the fact that Hardwick has just cut 20 or so players that he inherited from TW list and it would suggest quite strongly that TW didn't succeed at all.

 

[_RT_]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

How much blame does he really have to take? he was only at the club 6 weeks before drafting Tambling Meyer Polo Pattison. What about Miller?

And JON? How can you blame him when allegedly not one person from the football department even saw him play live.

And how many current coaches and their football departments have never made really bad recruiting mistakes?

It’s common knowledge it’s not the sole responsibility of the senior coach to have the final say on draft selection but that of the football department, and as we all know ours was almost non existent.

and as i said before.



So at least he admits some responsibility that ultimately shouldnt have been his at all.

If Ray can pat him on the back for the success stories like Lids & Jack, then why shouldn't he cop the criticism for those that failed?

 

[THE THIN MAN]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

Did Clarkson take a pay cut to help fund the football department?

Wallace was in the top echelon of paid coaches.

The reason we did not have any money is because it was being used to pay Wallace.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

Again I beg to differ. In TW's time we drafted:
Deledio Tambling Meyer Pattison Polo McGuane Limbach Graham Knobel Thursfield JON Hughes Casserley White Graham Humm Howat Riewoldt Edwards Connors Peterson Collins Kingsley Clingan King Cotchin Rance Putt Gourdis Collard Silvester Cartledge Howat (again) Vickery Post Hislop Cousins Nahas Gourdis(again) Browne & Gilligan.

16.5(given Collins a half point seeing as he has been traded and could still be a sollid player) out of 41 is not what I would call successfully building a list.

If Deledio starts at 17 years of age, finishes after 32, and each of the three 5yr drafting periods during his 15yrs at the club yields 9-10 solid/star players through the draft of a similar quality that Wallace's did, then how on earth can you claim that is not a success?

That is what clubs like the Cats, Dogs, Saints and Pies have built their repeat finals tilts around. 8-9 of Geelong's best premiership players were 27+, and all the other major contributors bar Selwood (and I guess you could argue Nathan Ablett) were in the 22-27 age bracket. We haven't had a list resembling the above since Northey's days, but Wallace's years ensure that as long as we continue drafting reasonably well, we'll have a great list balance like that.

It may not be the instant rebuild some people are fooled into thinking is possible after an entire decade of failing at the draft prior to 2004, but the reality is it was always going to take us a long time to get a proper age and experience balance back on the list.

We theoretically had a brief window at the beginning of Wallace's tenure where serious finals were possible if all went well, but all didn't go well did it? After that it was always going to take 6-8 drafts to regain competitiveness and 3-4 more to be serious flag contenders.

What we needed from Wallace's years was to get 1/3rd of a full list with 5-6 really good players amongst that third, build the next third of a list from the 2009-2013 drafts and add another 5-6 top players, then the final third from the 2014-2018 drafts and add another 3-4 really good juniors. You hope to get there quicker than that, but the above is the minimum requirement for successful list building and Wallace's years pass that with flying colours.

---------------------

Back to the topic somewhat, I think Wallace has underestimated the potential for key stars like Judd to maybe play deep into their 30's with their careers extended via the sub rule. Surely a champion who can still comfortably dominate for half a game (thinking players like Chapman, Hayes, Goodes a couple of years from now) but is gradually struggling to play full games and full seasons anymore is the ultimate 2nd half sub, as opposed to a utility, kid or 2nd ruck option?

 

[_RT_]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

If Deledio starts at 17 years of age, finishes after 32, and each of the three 5yr drafting periods during his 15yrs at the club yields 9-10 solid/star players through the draft of a similar quality that Wallace's did, then how on earth can you claim that is not a success?

Name the 9-10 solid/star players that TW drafted? Deledio Cotchin Riewoldt Edwards & perhaps Connors are the only ones from that TW drafted that would fit in that catergory of star/solid players and even then you're pushing it a little with the last couple.

We theoretically had a brief window at the beginning of Wallace's tenure where serious finals were possible if all went well, but all didn't go well did it? After that it was always going to take 6-8 drafts to regain competitiveness and 3-4 more to be serious flag contenders.

That is where TW stuffed up, he should have gone the whole hog and fully embraced the draft rather than chasing a dream. He had the security of a 5 year deal, as such he would have been safe in clearing the decks, much like Hardwick has with only a 3 year deal in place. If he had of done this we would probably be entering this year as a finals contender rather than a bottom 5 side.

What we needed from Wallace's years was to get 1/3rd of a full list with 5-6 really good players amongst that third, build the next third of a list from the 2009-2013 drafts and add another 5-6 top players, then the final third from the 2014-2018 drafts and add another 3-4 really good juniors. You hope to get there quicker than that, but the above is the minimum requirement for successful list building and Wallace's years pass that with flying colours.

The problem is we don't yet have 1/3 of a list with 5-6 really good players. What we have is a 1/3 of a list with potentially 3-4 really good players. Deledio would be the only one who you would currently rate as really good, Jack needs to have another couple of seasons like last years to really establish himself, while Cotchin and Martin are still a way off truly becoming very good players, yes they have shown glimpses, but they're not there yet.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

Wallace was in the top echelon of paid coaches.

The reason we did not have any money is because it was being used to pay Wallace.

That's pure fiction mate, the top level of coaches (Matthews, Malthouse, Sheedy etc.) were being paid in the $800-900K range. As a coach who'd beaten all of them head to head before and recently taken a side to a close Preliminary final loss, Wallace was discussing similar money with the Swans prior to the deal falling through.

He signed on with us for ~$500k a year because that's the most we could pay and took on a huge extra workload which no other coach in the league did at that time. Far from holding us to ransom on his contract, in reality he accepted 1-2 million less than his market value at the time over the term of his contract and allowed us to pour that money into getting something that slightly resembled a professional setup going.

Name the 9-10 solid/star players that TW drafted?

Foley, Deledio, Reiwoldt, Cotchin are all elite or on the way, Connors, Edwards, Morton are all very likely solid, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume we'll end up with at least 2-3 other solid (i.e. top-30) players out of McGuane, King, Rance, Vickery, Post, Graham, Thursfield, Browne and Nahas. If you don't think we can manage that then you'd best prepare yourself for another miserable 3-4 years and another change of coach.

That is where TW stuffed up, he should have gone the whole hog and fully embraced the draft...

The 40+ selections you list above - an average of 8 a year over 5 years through an era where we couldn't afford extra rookies - doesn't represent 'fully embracing the draft?' On the one hand you list the sheer amount of draft 'failures' we had as proof of Wallace's incompetence, then go on to complain we didn't draft enough players?

He had the security of a 5 year deal, as such he would have been safe in clearing the decks, much like Hardwick has with only a 3 year deal in place.

He cleared out a very similar number of players to Hardwick in his early years and didn't get the same luxury of having permission to bottom out which Hardwick was afforded.

The problem is we don't yet have 1/3 of a list with 5-6 really good players. What we have is a 1/3 of a list with potentially 3-4 really good players. Deledio would be the only one who you would currently rate as really good, Jack needs to have another couple of seasons like last years to really establish himself...

Why can't you see that we don't have a list with 5-6 really good players solely because we blew the draft for a decade prior to Wallace - where are all our 'really good' players from the '97-'03 drafts who should still be with us today?

You assert that even fast developing, older draftees like Reiwoldt are still too young to be considered 'really good' at this stage, therefore, by your own definition, only the 2004 draftees are old enough to be expected to be 'really good,' yet you feel Wallace cheated us by not leaving us with a serious finals side at the end of his tenure?

I really can't reconcile that logic...by your own definitions, virtually none of the Wallace draftees were old enough to be in a finals side.

 

[_RT_]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

Foley, Deledio, Reiwoldt, Cotchin are all elite or on the way, Connors, Edwards, Morton are all very likely solid, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume we'll end up with at least 2-3 other solid (i.e. top-30) players out of McGuane, King, Rance, Vickery, Post, Graham, Thursfield, Browne and Nahas. If you don't think we can manage that then you'd best prepare yourself for another miserable 3-4 years and another change of coach.

Foley was not a TW draftee, nor was Morton and seeing as we were specifically talking about how TW went at the draft they can't be included. As for the McGuane King Rance etc etc group never assume anything. Right now all of that group are still players we hope will come good. In fact right now a few of them are facing make or break seasons, which could add to the list of failed picks.

The 40+ selections you list above - an average of 8 a year over 5 years through an era where we couldn't afford extra rookies - doesn't represent 'fully embracing the draft?' On the one hand you list the sheer amount of draft 'failures' we had as proof of Wallace's incompetence, then go on to complain we didn't draft enough players?

TW took 22 out of 41 picks in the National draft (where the real talent lies) at an average of 4.5 picks per year. Take away the 8 players drafted in the first year and you then get 14 players taken in 4 National drafts at an average 3.5. Hardly what you would call embracing the draft.

Taking players like Cartledge Howat Silvester Humm Collard Mark Graham Kingsley who had either shown they weren't up to it or had passed it is not exactly what I would call embracing the draft either.

He cleared out a very similar number of players to Hardwick in his early years and didn't get the same luxury of having permission to bottom out which Hardwick was afforded.

Bullshit, TW had the security of a 5 year plan, he could have quite easily bottomed out in the first 2-3 years and there is nothing the club could have done, as they wouldn't have been able to afford to pay him out and then hire someone new. Hos problem was that when 05 started off well, his ego got the better off him and he lost focus on the big picture, which should have been bottoming out and using the system like Clarkson, Ratten, Bailey and ithers have done. Instead TW changed tact and kept trying to chase the impossible by pushing for finals.

Why can't you see that we don't have a list with 5-6 really good players solely because we blew the draft for a decade prior to Wallace - where are all our 'really good' players from the '97-'03 drafts who should still be with us today?

So now we've gone from having a list with 5-6 real good players to not having one.

You assert that even fast developing, older draftees like Reiwoldt are still too young to be considered 'really good' at this stage, therefore, by your own definition, only the 2004 draftees are old enough to be expected to be 'really good,' yet you feel Wallace cheated us by not leaving us with a serious finals side at the end of his tenure?

I really can't reconcile that logic...by your own definitions, virtually none of the Wallace draftees were old enough to be in a finals side.

I've said it before, for Jack to be considered a really good player he needs to have a couple more seasons like last year to show that it wasn't just a flash in the pan. Consistency is what makes players really good, not just the one great year.

 

[CoggaRules]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

If Deledio starts at 17 years of age, finishes after 32, and each of the three 5yr drafting periods during his 15yrs at the club yields 9-10 solid/star players through the draft of a similar quality that Wallace's did, then how on earth can you claim that is not a success?

That is what clubs like the Cats, Dogs, Saints and Pies have built their repeat finals tilts around. 8-9 of Geelong's best premiership players were 27+, and all the other major contributors bar Selwood (and I guess you could argue Nathan Ablett) were in the 22-27 age bracket. We haven't had a list resembling the above since Northey's days, but Wallace's years ensure that as long as we continue drafting reasonably well, we'll have a great list balance like that.

It may not be the instant rebuild some people are fooled into thinking is possible after an entire decade of failing at the draft prior to 2004, but the reality is it was always going to take us a long time to get a proper age and experience balance back on the list.

We theoretically had a brief window at the beginning of Wallace's tenure where serious finals were possible if all went well, but all didn't go well did it? After that it was always going to take 6-8 drafts to regain competitiveness and 3-4 more to be serious flag contenders.

What we needed from Wallace's years was to get 1/3rd of a full list with 5-6 really good players amongst that third, build the next third of a list from the 2009-2013 drafts and add another 5-6 top players, then the final third from the 2014-2018 drafts and add another 3-4 really good juniors. You hope to get there quicker than that, but the above is the minimum requirement for successful list building and Wallace's years pass that with flying colours.

---------------------

Back to the topic somewhat, I think Wallace has underestimated the potential for key stars like Judd to maybe play deep into their 30's with their careers extended via the sub rule. Surely a champion who can still comfortably dominate for half a game (thinking players like Chapman, Hayes, Goodes a couple of years from now) but is gradually struggling to play full games and full seasons anymore is the ultimate 2nd half sub, as opposed to a utility, kid or 2nd ruck option?

Dude, you are taking a number 1 draft pick as an example to suggest Wallace was a success recruiting wise? Face facts for once, apart from picks 1 and 2 and JR and a couple of out of left field like Foley, he failed dismally to indentify talent. Not to mention the catastrophic mistakes in identifying plodders as high draft picks too and incorporating the recruiting of experienced plodders to compliment them.
His usual line was "i like his work ethic thats why he is in the team". Instead of "i like his talent and skill just need to work on his work ethic". So we got a team that consisted mainly of plodders that tried hard, because thats the only thing that they had to offer, trying hard. So of course when we faced good sides with talent we were made to look like a suburban footy team and every so often the opponent had a bad day and played down to our standards and we won.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

Foley was not a TW draftee, nor was Morton and seeing as we were specifically talking about how TW went at the draft they can't be included. As for the McGuane King Rance etc etc group never assume anything. Right now all of that group are still players we hope will come good. In fact right now a few of them are facing make or break seasons, which could add to the list of failed picks.

You're right, Wallace promoted Foley from the rookie list - he's another great example of Wallace's legendary failure to develop talent in line with the pick they were taken at. If we trade a draft pick to get a player (i.e. Morton) that's identical to using the draft, after all, the draft pick is gone.

I'm perfectly comfortable that we'll get 2-3 more solid players out of the list I made earlier, if you either insist on being negative or refuse to make a call about every single player we have bar Deledio, that's your prerogative.

TW took 22 out of 41 picks in the National draft (where the real talent lies)...

So now you're going to start drawing semantic distinctions between the three drafts to try and make your point? It doesn't matter where in the draft or which draft players are taken, just whether they are taken.

I don't see you offering up the fact many of the Wallace era selections were from outside the National Draft as a reasonable excuse for his supposedly horrible failure rate.

Bullshit, TW had the security of a 5 year plan, he could have quite easily bottomed out in the first 2-3 years and there is nothing the club could have done,

You think he should have accepted the job under the understanding that we had to remain as competitive as possible because we couldn't financially afford to have another 2004, then gone against Miller, the football department (such as it was) and the entire board by embarking on a full rebuild by himself against the express wishes of the club at all levels?

Surely you're not serious, but on the off-chance you are, let me tell you what would have happened: the people who wanted to pay Wallace out after year one (and were offering to pay the cash out of their own personal funds, not club money) to get Sheedy would have got their wish sooner or later. He would have traded our picks for ready made players to give himself the best chance of success in line with his profile and we'd have almost none of the talented juniors Wallace pledged to get us and did.

Then, my friend, you'd have something genuine to complain about.

Hos problem was that when 05 started off well, his ego got the better off him and he lost focus on the big picture, which should have been bottoming out.

He went to the board after '05 when we lost Brown and told them we didn't have the list to chase finals, we had to be patient and build through the draft for another 5-6 years before our finals window would open again. They ignored him and we ended up with the March 'finals or else' ultimatum - which forced the recruiting department to again go back for recycled players instead of drafting for the long term.

So now we've gone from having a list with 5-6 real good players to not having one.

Only by your definition, which is what you obligated me to address. As I said, I'm happy to make the call that we've already got at least five 'real good' players, maybe a few more on the way, and a healthy number of solid and potential solid players. I also acknowledge how they got on the list.

I've said it before, for Jack to be considered a really good player he needs to have a couple more seasons like last year to show that it wasn't just a flash in the pan.

Fine, but don't go becoming extremely unfair by attacking Wallace over the fact that none of the draftees from his era meet your criteria for 'real good' when even Reiwoldt - who has developed as fast and well as we could ever hope for a key forward - simply isn't old enough to meet your criteria.

You are aware that's what you're doing right?

 

[santa claws]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

If Ray can pat him on the back for the success stories like Lids & Jack, then why shouldn't he cop the criticism for those that failed?

theres many still there who are borderline as well.

the question i have, is wallace responsible solely for recruiting mistakes?.the simple answer to that is no.
if hardwick is resposible for our recruiting today i want nothing to do with the club it will mean we have learnt not a thing.the simple truth is wallace should not have and hardwick should have little to do with drafting. yes some sort of say for sure but the final decision must fall to those who have been paid to actually go and watch these kids.

for recruiting me i blame miller. from the 05 draft onwards miller/ jackson and the 06 drafdt craig cameron/miller/jackson. or are they exempt from criticism because they are still at the club.

 

[THE THIN MAN]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

What about Miller/Wallace holding the members to ransom over the Casey ticket.

Simple fact is Wallace failed because he deviated from rebuilding the list by bringing in Kingsley and players of his ilk.

Wallace was also responsible for bringing in McMahon, short term fixes instead of long term solutions.

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

This thread has become too sensible!

QUICK! ... somebody troll something!

 

[maceman]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

Here I was thinking Terry Wallace was an idiot. How wrong was I. He has hit the nail smack bang on the head with this observation.

An grab from today’s HUN. I bet the Tankers board is giving it to him big time over this.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...carltons-quality/story-e6frf9jf-1226002425159

I'm sorry but I wish Wallet would piss off to the bush and never be heard from again, after having a hand in stuffing up the RFC. No credibility in my opinion.

 

[_RT_]

Re: Us Vs Them round 1 2011

You're right, Wallace promoted Foley from the rookie list - he's another great example of Wallace's legendary failure to develop talent in line with the pick they were taken at. If we trade a draft pick to get a player (i.e. Morton) that's identical to using the draft, after all, the draft pick is gone.

You can twist it around however you like like i.e. adding a rookie promotion and a traded player but those couple of successes are countered by the failures i.e. McMahon & Thompson trades. The simple fact is this of the 41 players TW drafted around 2/3 were failures.

I'm perfectly comfortable that we'll get 2-3 more solid players out of the list I made earlier, if you either insist on being negative or refuse to make a call about every single player we have bar Deledio, that's your prerogative.

Not being negative at all, just realistic. You named 9 players and said that you're confident that we'll find 2-3 solid players from that group. Odds are you're right, but can you name 2 players right now from McGuane, King, Rance, Vickery, Post, Graham, Thursfield, Browne and Nahas that you're 95% sure will become solid players. The only 2 from that list that I have any sort of confidence in is Vickery & Post and even then I'm only 50-50 on them making it.

So now you're going to start drawing semantic distinctions between the three drafts to try and make your point? It doesn't matter where in the draft or which draft players are taken, just whether they are taken.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that we can pick up players in the rookie draft who are as talented as those that get taken in the national draft. There are reasons why guys like Browne Nahas King Howat and co fall through to the rookie draft. They simply aren't that good to begin with and the odds of them making it are much lower than players taken in the national draft.

I don't see you offering up the fact many of the Wallace era selections were from outside the National Draft as a reasonable excuse for his supposedly horrible failure rate.

Hang on above you just said that it doesn't matter where they were picked as long as they were picked, now if I understand it right you're suggesting that the fact he picked a number of rookies should be considered as a reasonable excuse for failure.

You think he should have accepted the job under the understanding that we had to remain as competitive as possible because we couldn't financially afford to have another 2004, then gone against Miller, the football department (such as it was) and the entire board by embarking on a full rebuild by himself against the express wishes of the club at all levels?

If the club was truly saying that he had to remain as competitive as possible why not just give him the stock standard 2-3 year deal? Also given that we had to remain as competitive as possible, why wouldn't he have been sacked after the spoon in 07 when we won 3.5 games for the season? The club would have been well and truly justified in sacking him if he wasn't meeting the boards expectations.

Surely you're not serious, but on the off-chance you are, let me tell you what would have happened: the people who wanted to pay Wallace out after year one (and were offering to pay the cash out of their own personal funds, not club money) to get Sheedy would have got their wish sooner or later. He would have traded our picks for ready made players to give himself the best chance of success in line with his profile and we'd have almost none of the talented juniors Wallace pledged to get us and did.

Pure speculation on your part Ray. IIRC there were plenty of people who were jumping up and down at the end of 07 about getting rid of TW yet it wasn't until the final year of his contract when things weren't getting any better that he was finally let go.

He went to the board after '05 when we lost Brown and told them we didn't have the list to chase finals, we had to be patient and build through the draft for another 5-6 years before our finals window would open again. They ignored him and we ended up with the March 'finals or else' ultimatum - which forced the recruiting department to again go back for recycled players instead of drafting for the long term.

That finals or else ultimatum didn't come until the end of 2007, 3 years after he was appointed.

Only by your definition, which is what you obligated me to address. As I said, I'm happy to make the call that we've already got at least five 'real good' players, maybe a few more on the way, and a healthy number of solid and potential solid players. I also acknowledge how they got on the list.

You might be happy in saying we have 5-6 really good players now, based on a mixture of proven results and potential, I'm not. IMO, we have 1 in Deledio, because he has performed at a high level for the past 3 season. We potentially have another 4-5 with guys like Cotchin Martin Riewoldt Morton & Foley but for that to happen we need to see them have 2-3 consecutive seasons of really good footy before I'm prepared to label them as such. Surely performance is what is required to label someone, not just hype/potential.

Fine, but don't go becoming extremely unfair by attacking Wallace over the fact that none of the draftees from his era meet your criteria for 'real good' when even Reiwoldt - who has developed as fast and well as we could ever hope for a key forward - simply isn't old enough to meet your criteria.

You are aware that's what you're doing right?

No what I'm doing is attacking your assertions that said players have made it. As I mentioned above, I'll label a player as having made it after they put together a few seasons of top line footy, not when they have put together 1 and in some cases not even a full season of top line footy.