-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
The Pros and Cons of Tanking (Merged)
- Thread starter AstuteTiger
- Start date
Smoking Aces said:
I'm a big Cogz fan but i know where he is at, unless you are saying it for Hardwick's benefit, then fair enough.
Im not 100% certain Claw but im pretty sure there will be no PP,s for any team for years 10/11 ND.s,Due to the concessions given to GC and WS.the claw said:
Dyer Disciple said:
admire ur defence of thompson DD, i have been worried of late since my early approval and optimism in getting thompson due to his clearance work in SA, saw something last week re the hawks which just made me think maybe just maybe he could well be an inspired pic....
At the game last saturday obviously hard to watch the "in and under stuff" from the stands when theres 10 or more blokes around but once i watched the game again on tape, thommo had some very slick handballs out of the packs and hit the targets with all of them, 13 possession game, ok as it was his first game in the yellow and black...Will need to cement a regular position in 2010....
DD apart from the midfield where else could he be utilised, Forward, HBF, etc
CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:
yeah no PP's in the first round Captain as mentioned by AFL/Vlad, i think PP's still ok for the 2nd round but dont quote me on it as im not 100% sure.
Not so sure either AT. I remember reading that the afl were compelled to give GC the 1st pick in each round, not sure if that means any PP's will be allocated at the completion of the 1st round or after the 1st 5? picks GC have already.AstuteTiger said:
willo said:
Wait and see willo, on GC i think there 1st round pics are 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 1st pic of every subsequent round....that’s crazy!
What upsets me and just waiting on Mr Claw to voice his disgust on the previous yrs recruiting more so on who didnt go...
All and sundry knew GC was coming last year we had 4 pics, vickery, post, thompson and Hislop....now we should of had at least 6 or 7 because of GC and also knowing these guys either not up to it or end of the road....Simmonds, brown, cogs, petts, johnson, Bowden, *smile*, hughes etc etc
Craig Cameron for me made a big mistake in not picking at least 2 "17 yr olds" last year as insurance for this year cause GC can recruit up to 12 "17 yr olds"...
As a list manager how he could not see that Johnson should’ve been gone at years end 08' along with at least 3 of the above names this would’ve allowed another 3 or 4 pics in the ND of 08'....
Most PREnders knew who had to go or who had to be traded but Cameron and even Wallace didn’t foresee the changes needed, now we find ourselves in a position of panic, to delist, trade and retire all at once most of the guys mentioned above plus JON, patto and a few others...
Where is the planning of list management, why has it taken post 2009 to say hey these guys aren’t up to it and we need to recruit guys who can kick...
Ive i had a gutful of mediocrity and to think miller wanted to give Wallace a 2 yr extension late last year when we had some late season wins...
'All and sundry knew GC was coming last year we had 4 pics, vickery, post, thompson and Hislop....now we should of had at least 6 or 7 because of GC and also knowing these guys either not up to it or end of the road....Simmonds, brown, cogs, petts, johnson, Bowden, schulz, hughes etc etc '
Exactly right. Its now hindsight but how many people really thought the likes of especially Johnson, Pettifer, Schulz would have come good and been any value to the club. Complete waste of space and could have meant 3 more youngsters on the list. Johnson had deteriorated immensely in the previous year and was never going to be a regular. He'd even lost the captaincy. Pettifer yes he was on our injured list and we would have had to pay him anyway, so we should have just paid him and opened a spot. Schulz, well. my feelings on him are well documented. But instead we extend his contract for 2 years. Absurd.
Thankfully most of the oldies are being moved on this time around. But two of them at least should have happened last year. Was never happy with 6 over 30 year olds on the list.
Exactly right. Its now hindsight but how many people really thought the likes of especially Johnson, Pettifer, Schulz would have come good and been any value to the club. Complete waste of space and could have meant 3 more youngsters on the list. Johnson had deteriorated immensely in the previous year and was never going to be a regular. He'd even lost the captaincy. Pettifer yes he was on our injured list and we would have had to pay him anyway, so we should have just paid him and opened a spot. Schulz, well. my feelings on him are well documented. But instead we extend his contract for 2 years. Absurd.
Thankfully most of the oldies are being moved on this time around. But two of them at least should have happened last year. Was never happy with 6 over 30 year olds on the list.
GoodOne said:
goodone it staggers me that no real fwd planning was set at the club 2 yrs ago in view of GC joining the AFL, ahh *smile* and king were handed both 2 yrs contract and mcmahon the deal of a life time "3yrs for just under 1 mill"....
the forward planning should have started in 2002. after 2 yrs i knew nothing was happening hence the campaign against miller.AstuteTiger said:
there was never any chance of long term planning while the charlatan was in charge. it should of improved with the advent of cameron but low and behold things got worse if anything.
ya know a lot of people have put a lot of faith in cameron and jackson. based on performance i would be looking elsewhere right this minute. it wont happen though.
based on their performances and in camerons case what he did at melb as well we have to act to make sure we dont go thru another miller beck type scenario. a scenario that dragged out for yrs.
i hope like hell we have learnt the fact that you cant hang onto people who perform badly in these critical areas of the club for very long..
i have some clear thoughts on what should happen with the footy dept but lets face it cameron and jackson are safe at least in the short term.
the trouble with a review that is not independent of all participants and is not open to scrutiny is that those in charge who it should effect are in a position to lets say whitewash its results. this is my concern atm
the claw said:
Francis Jackson has done well with the selections he's been given, I actually apportion the blame on Cameron who has presided over the continual trading of picks for retreads and for not trading players like Schulz when we had the opportunities.
oh let me add at least the bottoming out process is a process. can any one tell me what process we have gone thru in the last 25 yrs when it comes to list management and recruiting.
clean out and then draft only player types who meet minimal set out skill sets.
including development types claw believes there is just 8 talls on the list worth keepin moving forward. to get the other 8 decent players you need we may draft another 16 players and end up with as many as 24 talls on the list at some stage..
i believe we need to find another 5 mids onballers of high quality to supplement the few decent ones we have now. how many will we have to go thru to get them. one thing for sure the only way it will happen is with long term planning.
ive said this before given an afl clubs resources i know for fact i would get my fair share of things wrong but if given 3 to 5 yrs to build up a core of players capable of top 4 finishes some simple processes that would hardly need to be changed over the clubs future history are easily applicable. and im just a muggins.what do clubs pay these other imbeciles so much money for.
clean out and then draft only player types who meet minimal set out skill sets.
including development types claw believes there is just 8 talls on the list worth keepin moving forward. to get the other 8 decent players you need we may draft another 16 players and end up with as many as 24 talls on the list at some stage..
i believe we need to find another 5 mids onballers of high quality to supplement the few decent ones we have now. how many will we have to go thru to get them. one thing for sure the only way it will happen is with long term planning.
ive said this before given an afl clubs resources i know for fact i would get my fair share of things wrong but if given 3 to 5 yrs to build up a core of players capable of top 4 finishes some simple processes that would hardly need to be changed over the clubs future history are easily applicable. and im just a muggins.what do clubs pay these other imbeciles so much money for.
the claw said:
Here here Claw, bit tough on jackson but totally echo ur thoughts on cameron hasnt he got a 5 yr year contract?, seems thats the miller way of getting people to the club, we fought hard for the hawks pelchen and offered him the top job but he turned it down, we then set our sights on cameron who incidentally left melb's list in total turmoil....
the claw said:
by your own reckoning Claw, all your untouchables are predominantly FJ picks. I'm not sure who you are alluding to in particular but I'm not including 2005 when Jackson first came aboard as there definitely appeared to be other influences at work. I don't want labour on this point because it has been discussed at length but since 2006, the few selections we've had have gone some way to repairing the damage of years gone by. If there is a complaint to be made, it's the lack of choices for which the resposibility rests with Cameron and Wallace.
IanG said:
Sure, thankfully Miller lost his grip when in 2006 when some heated discussions with FJ finally signalled the end of Miller's grip over the club. I distincly remember Greg being quite cold on the recruitment of Jack Riewoldt, at the time pushing very hard for Brent Renouf.
Ian, I'm not privy to conversations behind closed doors but I do know Miller was not over the moon with being a bit player with recruitment and the like. In 2005, when the RFC invited Francis Jackson to share responsibility for recruitment and drafting, he openly admitted that his first year was largely one of observation.
Now this is speculation on my part but in 2006, I cannot imagine that Miller would simply retire meekly into the background when it came to the future direction of the club. I'm not insinuating bad blood between the two but Miller obviously knew the writing was on the wall and would have pushed his own agenda in order to maintain his own sense of worth. Adding to this, the Polak trade which was orchestrated by Miller, also put Jackson's plan to recruit Riewoldt in some jeopardy as Jack was expected to go top ten. Come draft day, when Jack was still available at pick 13, the relief on Francis' face was palpable - this was the look of a man who got his man but not without some sleepless nights.
This isn't necessarily about Renouf versus Riewoldt but also a case of conflicting interests. Did Miller push the Renouf bandwagon to protect himself in the event that Riewoldt was unavailable? We won't know for sure but my take on this is he nominated a player who was a certainty at pick 13 simply to save face.
Now this is speculation on my part but in 2006, I cannot imagine that Miller would simply retire meekly into the background when it came to the future direction of the club. I'm not insinuating bad blood between the two but Miller obviously knew the writing was on the wall and would have pushed his own agenda in order to maintain his own sense of worth. Adding to this, the Polak trade which was orchestrated by Miller, also put Jackson's plan to recruit Riewoldt in some jeopardy as Jack was expected to go top ten. Come draft day, when Jack was still available at pick 13, the relief on Francis' face was palpable - this was the look of a man who got his man but not without some sleepless nights.
This isn't necessarily about Renouf versus Riewoldt but also a case of conflicting interests. Did Miller push the Renouf bandwagon to protect himself in the event that Riewoldt was unavailable? We won't know for sure but my take on this is he nominated a player who was a certainty at pick 13 simply to save face.
