Matt Rendall

[Elite Crow]

Matt Rendell

Im not having a go at Rendall for picking Danger as none of us know how good he will be, but Rendall made a mistake by going public with his ranking. He rated him 3rd in the draft. So far we have seen Rioli, Palmer, Cotchin and Kreuzer all play very good football. They all look like they are going to be stars. If Danger fits in behind these 4 that makes him 5th at best. It then casts doubt on Rendalls credibility. All he should have said is he rated Danger a top 10 pick and ahead of Ebert and that would have been enough.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

Good post. Ive never looked at it like that and you are spot on. In Dangers defence he may be the best of them all as he hasnt played but didnt he say every bloke he picked up he ranked in the to 30? The longer time goes the stupider that comment will look and surely it will make him look like either a first class bullshit artist or serioulsy lacking footballing credibilty. For me, I think he is just full of it and was talking his picks up.
But he has done a good job so far from what we have seen so far!

 

[betterthanu]

I'm pretty happy with the bloke at the moment. Whos to say Danger wont be better than the people you mentioned?

 

[Eastern Crow]

Rendall was forced tp justify his selection by a bias SA public and media that wanted Ebert

I personally endorse Rendall's courage to select Dangerfield and to make a public statement on this lads capability

Like on the footy field, if you play safe you lose

Watt's is this years potential #1 pick, like Dangerfield he will be completing year 12 next year and has stated he wants to focus on his studies and ensure that he has something to fall back on after footy

I am sure he will still get selected early as clubs see him as a long term quality player

On Randell's COMMENTS, the Geelong falcon's have come out in public to say, at the same age Dangerfield is as good as J Brown, G Ablett jnr and Bartel, now that is a wrap

I do not believe that Rendall looks stupid, I believe those who have taken a look at this situation through a short term lens and have made judgements on 2008 only, lack the bigger picture view and will be made to look a little silly down the track

Dangerfield would not of improved our results this year, as Kruzer has not lifted Carlton to the finals this year, but Dangerfield will be a top shelf 200 gamer for our club, that's what I am interested in, 10 years top shelf service not just 2008

 

[Elite Crow]

Again Im not having a go at the selection, and hopefully Danger is the pick of the bunch or at least 3rd best. But why say anything, hes on a hiding to nothing. He could have stated he was a top 10 pick and thats enough. All this bs about having to react to the media and the public. Who runs our club? the media and the public or our team management?

Also having watched Rioli last night, his skills are exceptional. Just look at Geelong, how many times do they butcher the ball? Some of their passes had no right to hit the target.

Our recruiting has to focus on skill, not athletic ability.

 

[Bosley]

I think Rioli and Cotchin have both exceeded expectations this year.

You are right, this now puts both Dangerfield and Rendall under unnecessary pressure. Having said that, probably not many people will remember Rendall giving his top 3 rating but I am sure the media will bring it up next year.

 

[swanfan]

Who is Matt Rendall ?. I know who Matt Rendell is.

 

[macca23]

Im not having a go at Rendall for picking Danger as none of us know how good he will be, but Rendall made a mistake by going public with his ranking. He rated him 3rd in the draft. So far we have seen Rioli, Palmer, Cotchin and Kreuzer all play very good football. They all look like they are going to be stars. If Danger fits in behind these 4 that makes him 5th at best. It then casts doubt on Rendalls credibility. All he should have said is he rated Danger a top 10 pick and ahead of Ebert and that would have been enough.

Rubbish.

He had the courage to say where he rated him and why he took him where he did.

Drafting is based on opinion and that was his. Whether Danger finishes 3rd best, 4th best 5th best or 10th best means nothing at all - nothing.

Not unless you believe that every other drafter for every other team gets their selection exactly right - and that really happens doesn't it.

Under your criterion, virtually no drafter has any credibility at all.

Patrick Dangerfield will be a very good player for us whatever his rating is - and that's all that matters.

 

[crowsarethebest]

Overall Dangerfield rated 3rd. For us. This not only includes their skills in playing football but also overall as a person, character etc. Dangerfield seems to have his head screwed on properly and seems to suit what we need. Rioli apparently had a crappy interview with us (probably to do with not wanting to move from Melbourne), therefore probably putting him down in our rankings. Why draft a talented individual that doesn't want to play for our club?

 

[Freddy Bassett]

Rubbish.

He had the courage to say where he rated him and why he took him where he did.

Drafting is based on opinion and that was his. Whether Danger finishes 3rd best, 4th best 5th best or 10th best means nothing at all - nothing.

Not unless you believe that every other drafter for every other team gets their selection exactly right - and that really happens doesn't it.

Under your criterion, virtually no drafter has any credibility at all.

Patrick Dangerfield will be a very good player for us whatever his rating is - and that's all that matters.

I think most of you are missing the point or the point I perceived. Forget Danger, but by saying his 7 picks were all in his 20 best players that he rated surely as time goes on its only going to make him have less credibility, it is a huge statement to make from a club that had pretty average draft picks at best. Im not bagging his picks but to say they were in his best 20 in the whole draft makes you wonder his footballing nouse and how he came to rank the players in that order.

 

[crowman_23]

Rubbish.

He had the courage to say where he rated him and why he took him where he did.

Drafting is based on opinion and that was his. Whether Danger finishes 3rd best, 4th best 5th best or 10th best means nothing at all - nothing.

Not unless you believe that every other drafter for every other team gets their selection exactly right - and that really happens doesn't it.

Under your criterion, virtually no drafter has any credibility at all.

Patrick Dangerfield will be a very good player for us whatever his rating is - and that's all that matters.

Exactly right. Once they come out of the draft comparing really is just stupid because you have late drafts picks who turn in to guns and early pcks who fail. Players come out of the rookie draft and star. Comparisons people continually make with drafts are stupid. Yes it's wonderfulto look back and say why did we get McGregor and not Pavlich? Why did the Tigers pick Tambling and not Franklin? All true but it's bloody easy in hindsight.

 

[Elite Crow]

Re: Matt Rendell

Rubbish.

He had the courage to say where he rated him and why he took him where he did.

Drafting is based on opinion and that was his. Whether Danger finishes 3rd best, 4th best 5th best or 10th best means nothing at all - nothing.

Not unless you believe that every other drafter for every other team gets their selection exactly right - and that really happens doesn't it.

Under your criterion, virtually no drafter has any credibility at all.

Patrick Dangerfield will be a very good player for us whatever his rating is - and that's all that matters.

The difference is the other recruiters dont pick players and then sprout they rated them a top 3 pick. They may think it but they keep it to themselves. Rendell has put pressure on himself and Danger by saying it. What was there to gain? You call it conviction I call it naive.

 

[macca23]

I think most of you are missing the point or the point I perceived. Forget Danger, but by saying his 7 picks were all in his 20 best players that he rated surely as time goes on its only going to make him have less credibility, it is a huge statement to make from a club that had pretty average draft picks at best. Im not bagging his picks but to say they were in his best 20 in the whole draft is asking for trouble down the track.

What trouble??

That was his opinion at the time we drafted them, and he may have been spot on at the time of drafting. Don't forget he's rating and drafting for our needs - not the competition in general. His top 20 is more likely to be the top 20 that would be the best for the crows, not the competition overall.

From that time on there are so many variables that come into it that have nothing to do with Rendall. Home-sickness, injury etc. that can have an effect on that original jdgement.

EVERY team makes drafting errors - it's not an exact science - so nobody expects Rendell to get every pick exactly right in the right order.

If Rendell gets 3 to 4 good footballers out of last years crop he will have done outstandingly well - wherever they may have been originally rated.

 

[King Elvis]

I don't have an issue with the statement from Rendell, but I can see where Elite Crow is coming from.

We seem to have a bit of a habit of making public statements which add no value, but almost back us into a corner.

Things like the contracts for over 30 players, and the curfew last year. Nothing wrong with either policy, but when you publically announce them, there is an expectation that you'll absolutely have to stick with them, whether or not you should.

 

[jo172]

Re: Matt Rendell

Im not having a go at Rendall for picking Danger as none of us know how good he will be, but Rendall made a mistake by going public with his ranking. He rated him 3rd in the draft. So far we have seen Rioli, Palmer, Cotchin and Kreuzer all play very good football. They all look like they are going to be stars. If Danger fits in behind these 4 that makes him 5th at best. It then casts doubt on Rendalls credibility. All he should have said is he rated Danger a top 10 pick and ahead of Ebert and that would have been enough.

Casts doubt on his credibility does it

Stupid statement.

It casts no doubt on his credibility, it merely shows that Rendell cannot see into the future and that his drafting is not flawless.

I can see the outraged threads now:

"Recruiting Manager fails to have 100% success rate!"

 

[jo172]

I don't have an issue with the statement from Rendell, but I can see where Elite Crow is coming from.

We seem to have a bit of a habit of making public statements which add no value, but almost back us into a corner.

Things like the contracts for over 30 players, and the curfew last year. Nothing wrong with either policy, but when you publically announce them, there is an expectation that you'll absolutely have to stick with them, whether or not you should.

And when you don't announce them you cop a huge public bagging for only signing the club legends to one year deals or alternately someone connects the not too difficult dots and works it out.

Double edged sword at it's sharpest

 

[Stiffy_18]

Re: Matt Rendell

Im not having a go at Rendall for picking Danger as none of us know how good he will be, but Rendall made a mistake by going public with his ranking. He rated him 3rd in the draft. So far we have seen Rioli, Palmer, Cotchin and Kreuzer all play very good football. They all look like they are going to be stars. If Danger fits in behind these 4 that makes him 5th at best. It then casts doubt on Rendalls credibility. All he should have said is he rated Danger a top 10 pick and ahead of Ebert and that would have been enough.

Strongly disagree! His ranking wasn't based purely on football talent. Its a main criteria no doubt but its not the only criteria. What you are basing your ranking on is PURELY on what you see on the field. Rendall on the other hand has to take into considerations other issues.

For example he said he had Rioli at 4 but that wasn't based purely on talent. He also had to take into consideration how Rioli performed in the interview and we all know that Rioli was said to be the worst interview the AFC ever experienced and he was adamant that he wants to stay in victoria and would be back there after his initial contract is up. Based on that, and the issues this club has had with the go home factor in recent times, its only fair that Rioli dropped down a couple of spots. Based PURELY on talent, Randell publicly said that Rioli is the best junior he has seen in a VERY VERY long time.

Dangerfield rated at 3 because he was rated higher when all things are considered, not just talent. He might not be the 3rd best player out of the draft but he was the 3rd best player that fulfills our criteria.

 

[Elite Crow]

Re: Matt Rendell

Casts doubt on his credibility does it

Stupid statement.

It casts no doubt on his credibility, it merely shows that Rendell cannot see into the future and that his drafting is not flawless.

I can see the outraged threads now:

"Recruiting Manager fails to have 100% success rate!"

It doesnt? When its your job to make assesments on players, surely you want to have an ounce of credibility or you wont be in the job for too long. Especially if you go on record rating a player a hell of a lot higher than most other clubs did. Again my point is he should have just kept his mouth shut or toned down his assessment. After all the failures with our first round draft picks, do we need to bring anymore attention to ourselves?

 

[Stiffy_18]

Re: Matt Rendell

The difference is the other recruiters dont pick players and then sprout they rated them a top 3 pick. They may think it but they keep it to themselves. Rendell has put pressure on himself and Danger by saying it. What was there to gain? You call it conviction I call it naive.

Oh they do its just that you either are not interested to hear it or read up about it!

Every club does it. When they draft their players they go on the radio nation wide and justify their selections and majority of them spin the same story, he was our 3rd best of our top 4 picks were all rated in our top 25 etc...

Rendell cops the flack here because of all the 16 recruiters in the AFL, he was the one under most pressure ot justify his selection. While I didn't buy into the talk that a lot of our players we had in the top 25-30, I think he was put on the spot and was honest about his assessments. He justified his selections to the restless supporter base that were practically out for the blood because the club overlooked SA's favourite son Ebert in favour of a victorian teenager who will be staying in Victoria to complete year 12.

 

[jo172]

Re: Matt Rendell

It doesnt? When its your job to make assesments on players, surely you want to have an ounce of credibility or you wont be in the job for too long. Especially if you go on record rating a player a hell of a lot higher than most other clubs did.?

There is no way you can infer that he is lying and therefore his credibility has been lowered by the pre-draft rankings of other clubs. His credbility is unqustionable.

His skill as a recruiter may be questionable, but in that he doesn't have to answer to the public but to the football club. And even if you think he should have kept his rankings not public he could hardly not share them with the football club meaning his indiscretion caused absolutely no difference except to keep the unwashed masses calm for another few weeks.

After all the failures with our first round draft picks, do we need to bring anymore attention to ourselves?

Of FFS, he was being interveiwed on 5AA on the day after the draft and the comments only got replayed on here, he's hardly been shouting out on the roof tops. This has not brought any extra attention on the Adelaide Football Club except for the obsessives on here (including me) he would have been paying attention to the AFC anyway.

 

[Elite Crow]

Re: Matt Rendell

Strongly disagree! His ranking wasn't based purely on football talent. Its a main criteria no doubt but its not the only criteria. What you are basing your ranking on is PURELY on what you see on the field. Rendall on the other hand has to take into considerations other issues.

For example he said he had Rioli at 4 but that wasn't based purely on talent. He also had to take into consideration how Rioli performed in the interview and we all know that Rioli was said to be the worst interview the AFC ever experienced and he was adamant that he wants to stay in victoria and would be back there after his initial contract is up. Based on that, and the issues this club has had with the go home factor in recent times, its only fair that Rioli dropped down a couple of spots. Based PURELY on talent, Randell publicly said that Rioli is the best junior he has seen in a VERY VERY long time.

Dangerfield rated at 3 because he was rated higher when all things are considered, not just talent. He might not be the 3rd best player out of the draft but he was the 3rd best player that fulfills our criteria.

Our side has a long list of respectable young men with average to good football talent. This is one of the reasons we havent won a flag for 10 years. Talent and skill should be paramount. Vic Crow has seen enough of Danger and the main concern he has is his disposal. No player that has question marks over his disposal should be rated 3rd no matter the criteria.

 

[Elite Crow]

Re: Matt Rendell

There is no way you can infer that he is lying and therefore his credibility has been lowered by the pre-draft rankings of other clubs. His credbility is unqustionable.

His skill as a recruiter may be questionable, but in that he doesn't have to answer to the public but to the football club. And even if you think he should have kept his rankings not public he could hardly not share them with the football club meaning his indiscretion caused absolutely no difference except to keep the unwashed masses calm for another few weeks.



Of FFS, he was being interveiwed on 5AA on the day after the draft and the comments only got replayed on here, he's hardly been shouting out on the roof tops. This has not brought any extra attention on the Adelaide Football Club except for the obsessives on here (including me) he would have been paying attention to the AFC anyway.

You are clutching at straws. You talk about skills as a recruiter, if you dont have the skills for your job, then how can you have credibility in that role?

And if you think only Big Footy picked up on Rendells comments then you have been sitting in front of the computer for too long.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

What trouble??

That was his opinion at the time we drafted them, and he may have been spot on at the time of drafting. Don't forget he's rating and drafting for our needs - not the competition in general. His top 20 is more likely to be the top 20 that would be the best for the crows, not the competition overall.

From that time on there are so many variables that come into it that have nothing to do with Rendall. Home-sickness, injury etc. that can have an effect on that original jdgement.

EVERY team makes drafting errors - it's not an exact science - so nobody expects Rendell to get every pick exactly right in the right order.

If Rendell gets 3 to 4 good footballers out of last years crop he will have done outstandingly well - wherever they may have been originally rated.

If its for our needs and our draft picks that is a different kettle of fish. But I must admit I didnt hear him say that.
The trouble that I mentioned and you questioned is how in time he will look to have gotten it so wrong. What he said was a massive statement, do you honestly believe last year we drafted 7 of the top twenty kids in Australia? f we got 2 of last years top 20 down the track we have done exceptional.

 

[jo172]

Re: Matt Rendell

You are clutching at straws. You talk about skills as a recruiter, if you dont have the skills for your job, then how can you have credibility in that role?.

No you're clutching at straws as credibility as originally implied was purely a question of honesty.

And if you think only Big Footy picked up on Rendells comments then you have been sitting in front of the computer for too long.

Show me something else where the Crows have copped any flack for these pre-draft rankings and I'll believe you.

 

[jo172]

If its for our needs and our draft picks that is a different kettle of fish. But I must admit I didnt hear him say that.
The trouble that I mentioned and you questioned is how in time he will look to have gotten it so wrong. What he said was a massive statement, do you honestly believe last year we drafted 7 of the top twenty kids in Australia? f we got 2 of last years top 20 down the track we have done exceptional.

But every recruiter says that every year.

It's just like when you hear that the players are breaking records in pre-season.

You smile, nod, ignore it and wait for something concrete.