Our recruiting

[JustaBattler]

It's funny, after Round 3 everyone wanted to be on the Carlton bandwagon. Carlton supporters, the Media, opposition supporters, bookmakers were all proclaiming the Blues as the next big thing, particularly given the way we had smashed Essendon in the 2011 EF & been brave in an unlucky loss at Subiaco in the 1st SF & had started 2012 off with 3 comprehensive wins.

Fast forward a couple of months & apparently the coach is shot, our backline, midfield & forward line have nothing & our recruiting over the last 10 years has been "a joke". Where were all these critics immediately after the 2011 season, or more importantly immediately after we handed Collingwood their backsides? Where has Bruce Mathieson been during the last 10 years when this "joke" recruiting has been taking place? He is a very smart businessman, surely he would have observed earlier than now that there has been a problem with our recruiting during that 10 year period. Why is he leaving it until now to raise this issue? He seems to have been happily riding the bandwagon, to the extent of setting up the deal which has seen significant revenue becoming available to the club. Surely if he knew there was a problem, he would have placed a caveat on any assistance being offered to the club until these issues were sorted out.

We are now starting to see what happens when a few agitators start making some noise. The sheep/nervous nellies start to follow, then the media get wind of potential instability & before you know it your club is constantly having to defend itself against these troublemakers (& that is all they are).

Why was nobody complaining about the recruiting after we beat Collingwood in Round 3? Was it perhaps because at that stage we had a reasonably healthy list to choose from?

FWIW, I will concede that our recruiting from 2002 - 2004 (that is in the last 10 years as referred to by Mathieson) was ordinary, Simpson & Walker notwithstanding, but perhaps if Mathieson had been as proactive back then, we may not have lost our draft picks due to salary cap breaches & may have been able to start building our depth from 2002 instead of 2005 (probably earlier than that if we had respected the draft in the way Geelong did).

Background to Discontent

Losing to WC by 3 points last year was an 'honourable defeat - setting up expectations of a big year this year. A poor NAB Cup was ignored as it should be and decisive win over Richmond - who did play well and Brisbane who had beaten us convincingly in NAB and then a powerful display against Collingwood - who had injuries before and during the game set up big expectations nevertheless.

Weak as P*** peformances

Essendon loss and the manner in which we lost made many sit up and get very angry at the poor effort from players on ground as far as hardness goes.

These criticisms were brushed aside by the faithful - however losses against Adelaide, Saints - both employing the hard at it against us and finally a humiliating thrashing against Port was the final straw really. These losses were NOT expected - but more importantrly - the manner in which the team folded underlined the worst fears of those experienced enough to know that our depth would be tested as well as the quality of the replacement players stepping up to fill the void made by the terrible run of injuries.

Depth has been found wanting - despite the injuries - there are players on teh list who shoudl have been able to step up : Bower/Ruyssell/Thronton - but where are also all teh other bigger bodied player in VFL - a team gone from Prelim to last in a very short space in time.

Two issues boiled to the surface: Firstly why are Carlton so easily able to be smashed physically? and Secondly how does a professional team find itself so short of players able to come in and at least present as a tall marking forward.

The Coach has been let down by players senior enough to do much better as far as physicality goes: Bower/Thornton/Russell should have been able to step up and hence have been missing from selection. Secondly players on the field have allowed themselves to be rag dolled into irrelevancy : Gibbs / Hamspon / Gartlett in particular. At the same time Players like Judd/Kreuzer/Yarran have (apprently) been played whilst injured.

Recruiting

So we have no issues in recruiting what so ever? uh huh - so that is why we have no depth issue? uh huh...ok yeah sure

Agitators

an interesting word that 'agitator'. My question is who are these agaitators that you speak of?

 

[mediumsizered]

Background to Discontent

Losing to WC by 3 points last year was an 'honourable defeat - setting up expectations of a big year this year. A poor NAB Cup was ignored as it should be and decisive win over Richmond - who did play well and Brisbane who had beaten us convincingly in NAB and then a powerful display against Collingwood - who had injuries before and during the game set up big expectations nevertheless.

Weak as P*** peformances

Essendon loss and the manner in which we lost made many sit up and get very angry at the poor effort from players on ground as far as hardness goes.

These criticisms were brushed aside by the faithful - however losses against Adelaide, Saints - both employing the hard at it against us and finally a humiliating thrashing against Port was the final straw really. These losses were NOT expected - but more importantrly - the manner in which the team folded underlined the worst fears of those experienced enough to know that our depth would be tested as well as the quality of the replacement players stepping up to fill the void made by the terrible run of injuries.

Depth has been found wanting - despite the injuries - there are players on teh list who shoudl have been able to step up : Bower/Ruyssell/Thronton - but where are also all teh other bigger bodied player in VFL - a team gone from Prelim to last in a very short space in time.

Two issues boiled to the surface: Firstly why are Carlton so easily able to be smashed physically? and Secondly how does a professional team find itself so short of players able to come in and at least present as a tall marking forward.

The Coach has been let down by players senior enough to do much better as far as physicality goes: Bower/Thornton/Russell should have been able to step up and hence have been missing from selection. Secondly players on the field have allowed themselves to be rag dolled into irrelevancy : Gibbs / Hamspon / Gartlett in particular. At the same time Players like Judd/Kreuzer/Yarran have (apprently) been played whilst injured.

Recruiting

So we have no issues in recruiting what so ever? uh huh - so that is why we have no depth issue? uh huh...ok yeah sure

Agitators

an interesting word that 'agitator'. My question is who are these agaitators that you speak of?

None of this answers the question of why all of a sudden our recruiting for the last 10 years is considered to be a joke, when it wasn't this time a year ago, or more recently after Round 3.

Why did so many consider us to be premiership favourites after Round 3 if it was obvious there were problems with our recruiting & our depth? Perhaps it wasn't obvious at all, perhaps it only became obvious after injuries were suffered by Walker, Carazzo, Laidler, Yarran, Duigan, Waite, Thornton, Henderson, Murphy, all best 22 players from last season. Then of course there was the interrupted pre-season for Judd, Jamison, Warnock, also best 22 players from last season (that is more than 50% of our best 22 from last year affected by injury either pre-season or during the season). If you add in the injuries/illness suffered by potential back-up players e,g. Rowe, Mitchell, Casboult, Davies, White & suddenly you are looking at needing to consider the likes of Bootsma, Dale, McInnes, even Buckley (who also suffered a serious injury during the pre-season) as potential call-ups for your senior 22.

I don't think you need to look too hard to see where it has gone downhill, starting with the 4 injuries sustained in the Essendon game (Carrazzo & Laidler were rendered useless the first 5 minutes of that game). Now we have seen players filtering back into the team in recent weeks, but confidence levels are extremely low & that is something you just can't 'flick a switch' to turn back on. When it does happen the self belief will see players backing themselves in as they were doing prior to Round 4.

 

[Sector 7G]

That's one mother******* large deer.

More like a Moose than a deer

 

[Tanks_Alot]

IMO the 2 main blunders were going for Warnock and McLean. The club wanted to be successful immediately and in so doing have jeopardised our stocks. With the ruck department at the time we had Kreuzer, Hampson and Jacobs. All 3 were considered to have a lot of potential especially Kreuzer. So why go after a ruckman who's struggling to get a game at an average club? Was he all of a sudden expected to be one of the most dominant ruckman in the comp? Had we been patient and stuck with what we had at the time, we would still have Jacobs along with Hammer and Kruze. Instead of giving them time they spent pick 24 to get ANOTHER ruckman. We could've used that pick to get a KPP like McKernan.

Then we give up pick 11 BEFORE TRADE WEEK EVEN STARTS for Brock McLean. Now come on, seriously anybody who doesn't think that was dumb is an idiot themselves. We could've kept pick 11 and we would've also had pick 12. That's 2 top 15 picks in a row. Most likely would've landed Talia with one of those (who btw is going better than Lucas 3 years on) and we should've spent pick 12 more wisely. When players slip in drafts, it tells me that there is something not right about them regarding attitude. All we can see is how well they play at under 18's but we don't really know them and their attitude. With Lucas it's quite obvious that the clubs that left him knew he had issues and that's why he slipped and it's been obvious that he doesn't have the right work ethic and is far too soft. Fyfe and Jetta were both still available. The type of players drafted by the clubs that skipped Fyfe seemed to really fit their needs. The Dogs made a very surprising choice with Howard and have now paid for it. Pittard a defender drafted by Port has earned a rising star nomination which is more than we can say about Lucas. Menzel looked to be an excellent selection by the Cats. Tapscott has also shown more than Lucas in a struggling side. Tigers drafted Griffiths who was a KPF they needed that type of player. Then Fyfe was drafted. We did NOT need another soft outside midfielder and his skills aren't all they're cracked up to be either from what I've seen.

2010 also didn't impress me. We backed ourselves into a corner by not selecting any KPP players with our early picks the previous 2 years and so they went all out KPP. It's still is too early to call though but I'm hoping that Mitchell can show something at AFL level. Watson already has been impressive but he lacks speed and I hope this doesn't expose him with all the athletic forwards.

But yeah, getting Warnock and McLean still very bad choices and I still can't figure out the logic behind them. I mean I know we wanted an inside mid but come on pick 11 for a guy struggling at Melbourne? A guy that has been exposed for his lack of pace? Doesn't make sense to me at all. I just hope it wasn't a Ratts and Riley thing because they both used to work at Melbourne. IINM there was some talk about how Icke wasn't happy about it. And Warnock, well mind = blown we had 3 young promising rucks and we give up an early pick for yet another. No patience whatsoever with the talent we had.

 

[mediumsizered]

IMO the 2 main blunders were going for Warnock and McLean. The club wanted to be successful immediately and in so doing have jeopardised our stocks. With the ruck department at the time we had Kreuzer, Hampson and Jacobs. All 3 were considered to have a lot of potential especially Kreuzer. So why go after a ruckman who's struggling to get a game at an average club? Was he all of a sudden expected to be one of the most dominant ruckman in the comp? Had we been patient and stuck with what we had at the time, we would still have Jacobs along with Hammer and Kruze. Instead of giving them time they spent pick 24 to get ANOTHER ruckman. We could've used that pick to get a KPP like McKernan.

Then we give up pick 11 BEFORE TRADE WEEK EVEN STARTS for Brock McLean. Now come on, seriously anybody who doesn't think that was dumb is an idiot themselves. We could've kept pick 11 and we would've also had pick 12. That's 2 top 15 picks in a row. Most likely would've landed Talia with one of those (who btw is going better than Lucas 3 years on) and we should've spent pick 12 more wisely. When players slip in drafts, it tells me that there is something not right about them regarding attitude. All we can see is how well they play at under 18's but we don't really know them and their attitude. With Lucas it's quite obvious that the clubs that left him knew he had issues and that's why he slipped and it's been obvious that he doesn't have the right work ethic and is far too soft. Fyfe and Jetta were both still available. The type of players drafted by the clubs that skipped Fyfe seemed to really fit their needs. The Dogs made a very surprising choice with Howard and have now paid for it. Pittard a defender drafted by Port has earned a rising star nomination which is more than we can say about Lucas. Menzel looked to be an excellent selection by the Cats. Tapscott has also shown more than Lucas in a struggling side. Tigers drafted Griffiths who was a KPF they needed that type of player. Then Fyfe was drafted. We did NOT need another soft outside midfielder and his skills aren't all they're cracked up to be either from what I've seen.

2010 also didn't impress me. We backed ourselves into a corner by not selecting any KPP players with our early picks the previous 2 years and so they went all out KPP. It's still is too early to call though but I'm hoping that Mitchell can show something at AFL level. Watson already has been impressive but he lacks speed and I hope this doesn't expose him with all the athletic forwards.

But yeah, getting Warnock and McLean still very bad choices and I still can't figure out the logic behind them. I mean I know we wanted an inside mid but come on pick 11 for a guy struggling at Melbourne? A guy that has been exposed for his lack of pace? Doesn't make sense to me at all. I just hope it wasn't a Ratts and Riley thing because they both used to work at Melbourne. IINM there was some talk about how Icke wasn't happy about it. And Warnock, well mind = blown we had 3 young promising rucks and we give up an early pick for yet another. No patience whatsoever with the talent we had.

At the time we recruited Warnock, Kreuzer had spent his first season on our list shouldering a significant amount of our ruckwork (not ideal for a first year player, particularly a first year ruckman), Hammer was still very much a project player & Jacobs was delisted & then re-rookied, having yet to suggest that he was going to be an AFL player (& he was only 20 years of age). The view then was that Kreuzer was going to be a quality player & both Hammer & Jacobs were very much unknown quantities. We needed a ruckman to assist Kreuzer or else we were going to 'kill' him before he had reached his peak years.

Of course drafting by hindsight is always much easier than on 'spec', but then I don't have to tell you that because you'd realise that we got lucky with someone like Betts in the PSD, when all clubs overlooked him in the ND. As for being wary of players who have slipped in the draft, it happens all the time, sometimes it works out e.g. Robinson, sometimes it might not.

 

[Kramer1]

At the time we recruited Warnock, Kreuzer had spent his first season on our list shouldering a significant amount of our ruckwork (not ideal for a first year player, particularly a first year ruckman), Hammer was still very much a project player & Jacobs was delisted & then re-rookied, having yet to suggest that he was going to be an AFL player (& he was only 20 years of age). The view then was that Kreuzer was going to be a quality player & both Hammer & Jacobs were very much unknown quantities. We needed a ruckman to assist Kreuzer or else we were going to 'kill' him before he had reached his peak years.

Of course drafting by hindsight is always much easier than on 'spec', but then I don't have to tell you that because you'd realise that we got lucky with someone like Betts in the PSD, when all clubs overlooked him in the ND. As for being wary of players who have slipped in the draft, it happens all the time, sometimes it works out e.g. Robinson, sometimes it might not.

The hindsight comment basically nails it, but I still think the recruitment of Warnock hasty and ill-thought out. I don't argue the need for a ruckman at the time, but not sure offering a long , big dollar contract to a physically immature ruckman with 21 games under his belt was really the right play to make.

 

[JustaBattler]

None of this answers the question of why all of a sudden our recruiting for the last 10 years is considered to be a joke, when it wasn't this time a year ago, or more recently after Round 3.

Why did so many consider us to be premiership favourites after Round 3 if it was obvious there were problems with our recruiting & our depth? Perhaps it wasn't obvious at all, perhaps it only became obvious after injuries were suffered by Walker, Carazzo, Laidler, Yarran, Duigan, Waite, Thornton, Henderson, Murphy, all best 22 players from last season. Then of course there was the interrupted pre-season for Judd, Jamison, Warnock, also best 22 players from last season (that is more than 50% of our best 22 from last year affected by injury either pre-season or during the season). If you add in the injuries/illness suffered by potential back-up players e,g. Rowe, Mitchell, Casboult, Davies, White & suddenly you are looking at needing to consider the likes of Bootsma, Dale, McInnes, even Buckley (who also suffered a serious injury during the pre-season) as potential call-ups for your senior 22.

I don't think you need to look too hard to see where it has gone downhill, starting with the 4 injuries sustained in the Essendon game (Carrazzo & Laidler were rendered useless the first 5 minutes of that game). Now we have seen players filtering back into the team in recent weeks, but confidence levels are extremely low & that is something you just can't 'flick a switch' to turn back on. When it does happen the self belief will see players backing themselves in as they were doing prior to Round 4.

I don't disagree with anythign you say - in fact I have said it myself - repeatedly since i dcovered this site. Recruting is like portfolio management, you ahve to balance what is neded to day with teh inevitability that today's star will age and decline. You aslo at teh same time have to pla for injury. It aint easy.

The fact is that recruting and development ( list management ) has been found wnting this year. That is a by definition fact.

Unlike many critics here and I liek reading criticism as much as fair responses - the fact of the matter is - we do not have a portfolio of players giving us coverage for now and depth for the future - yet. The good news is that I am sure the Club has this fact underlined now.

The only thing that no one should tolerate or see in any player on the field at any time - wearing the Blue jumper is lack of effort and intensity. I dont care how many games we lose - as long as the Blues get a hard edge to thir game. That is wat is missing and that my friend is teh FIRST thing any decent coach insists on - the FIRST thing. Because when teh chips ar edown - that hard edge that pride and that toughness is what turns things around. and THAT factor is #1 in recruiting for good recruiters.

You might not win a premiership with too many Robbos and Carrazzos and Walkers and Tuoheys - but you want ever be humiliated - thats i my only concern re recruiting- go for the hard nuts first.

Judd shoudl NEVER have had to endure teh physical smashing he gets week in week out. We need hardness to balance flair. Ship some hardness in - and we will be unbeatable.

 

[Buzz/Sticks/bryce]

IIRC, there was a ranking of all clubs recruiting not so long ago (can't remember where or when sorry), that had us about 5th or 6th in the last few years. This for me was about right. One of our biggest issues IMO has been I still am unsure on exactly who our list manager is? I understand it may be a consensus of coach, MC and recruiters? Too many cooks. Spend a little coin on someone who spends their time in charge of our list, puts their balls on the line and makes sure we don't need to scour the SANFL for 24 y.o kpfs. Keep the structure of our list from residing in God's hands with a strict 'best available' policy. If we're contemplating spending valuable draft picks for trade scenarios, make sure its for something we really need, and not just a handy addition to our list who wants to move. Not every year is going to be Annus Horribilis, we'll be thereabouts again- lets just make sure we look to the great 'Carlton Brains trust' of the past, and make sure we tick every box.

 

[stuckinhill]

It's funny, after Round 3 everyone wanted to be on the Carlton bandwagon. Carlton supporters, the Media, opposition supporters, bookmakers were all proclaiming the Blues as the next big thing, particularly given the way we had smashed Essendon in the 2011 EF & been brave in an unlucky loss at Subiaco in the 1st SF & had started 2012 off with 3 comprehensive wins.

Fast forward a couple of months & apparently the coach is shot, our backline, midfield & forward line have nothing & our recruiting over the last 10 years has been "a joke". Where were all these critics immediately after the 2011 season, or more importantly immediately after we handed Collingwood their backsides? Where has Bruce Mathieson been during the last 10 years when this "joke" recruiting has been taking place? He is a very smart businessman, surely he would have observed earlier than now that there has been a problem with our recruiting during that 10 year period. Why is he leaving it until now to raise this issue? He seems to have been happily riding the bandwagon, to the extent of setting up the deal which has seen significant revenue becoming available to the club. Surely if he knew there was a problem, he would have placed a caveat on any assistance being offered to the club until these issues were sorted out.

We are now starting to see what happens when a few agitators start making some noise. The sheep/nervous nellies start to follow, then the media get wind of potential instability & before you know it your club is constantly having to defend itself against these troublemakers (& that is all they are).

Why was nobody complaining about the recruiting after we beat Collingwood in Round 3? Was it perhaps because at that stage we had a reasonably healthy list to choose from?

FWIW, I will concede that our recruiting from 2002 - 2004 (that is in the last 10 years as referred to by Mathieson) was ordinary, Simpson & Walker notwithstanding, but perhaps if Mathieson had been as proactive back then, we may not have lost our draft picks due to salary cap breaches & may have been able to start building our depth from 2002 instead of 2005 (probably earlier than that if we had respected the draft in the way Geelong did).

There have always been posters on here that have said Hughes should never have been put in charge of recruiting at Carlton. There have also been posters on here that defended Hughes and would never allow any debate about his record. The former posters were right, the latter have egg on their faces. My question is this, if our recruiting was so successful, why was the position of head recruiter stripped away from Hughes so that he no longer has the final say?

 

[Jeremias]

There have always been posters on here that have said Hughes should never have been put in charge of recruiting at Carlton. There have also been posters on here that defended Hughes and would never allow any debate about his record. The former posters were right, the latter have egg on their faces. My question is this, if our recruiting was so successful, why was the position of head recruiter stripped away from Hughes so that he no longer has the final say?

Besides an over-inflated and terribly misguided ego, what makes you so sure that the 'former' are right?

You are nothing but a troll who revels in the fact that we are struggling.

 

[stuckinhill]

Besides an over-inflated and terribly misguided ego, what makes you so sure that the 'former' are right?

You are nothing but a troll who revels in the fact that we are struggling.

What makes me so sure? Hughes lost his gig as our head recruiter and no longer has the final say, and has not moved to a position as head of recruitment at any other club. I wonder why that is... it's because the former was right. I remember the old debates about whether or not Hine or Hughes was the better recruiter. I think any reasonable football fan would tell you that if Hine was not head recruiter at Collingwood but instead suddenly available, he'd be snapped up pretty quickly as head of recruitment at another club. So yes, the former are right.

I am not a troll but a passionate Carlton fan who always had doubts about Wayne Hughes. Those doubts have proven to be correct. Is Bruce Mathieson a troll too? Guaranteeing our financial future is just one massive troll by Bruce is it all so he can also troll off about our recruiting?

In the end Jeremias I know you are a passionate Carlton fan who wants what is best for the club. Deep down you know that Hughes was not up to the job of being head recruiter (that's why he no longer has the final say). Deep down you would never want Hughes having the final say again (that's why we removed him).

My issues are with those posters who do not so much revel in the fact we are struggling, but do not care if we struggle or not as long as they boost their chances of becoming professional recruiters. They know who they are, and they have been remarkably silent since Hughes had the final say taken away from him (i.e they were embarrassingly proven wrong). They sought to always shut down debate on Hughes not out of care for the club, but for themselves. Not out of a want to see Carlton at its best, but in some vain hope that Hughes might pluck them off the forum and into a recruiting gig. They are the trolls.

 

[Snoozer]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/car...ampaign=Feed:+HeraldSunAfl+(Herald+Sun+|+AFL)

Says it all really. Plenty of big red crosses there.

Gibbs and Kreuzer been serviceable but underwhelming all things considered in their careers so far, but for mine it's the mid/late first round - early second-round picks where the damage has been done.
Russell
Bower
Hampson
Grigg
Lucas (Hearing some very concerning reports from VFL level)

You would expect some serious quality from top 20 picks. None have delivered anything like what could have been reasonably expected.

Shame that two of the bigger success stories of the recent drafting history, Kennedy and Jacobs, are no longer at the club.

The 2006 draft was a disgrace in hindsight given the picks they had.

And stuckinhill, mate I agree with your viewpoint, but you are banging your head against a brick wall. These guys spend 10 hours a day trawling the boards of bigfooty... surely that tells you something. But you're the troll.

 

[Aphrodite]

What makes me so sure? Hughes lost his gig as our head recruiter and no longer has the final say, and has not moved to a position as head of recruitment at any other club. I wonder why that is... it's because the former was right. I remember the old debates about whether or not Hine or Hughes was the better recruiter. I think any reasonable football fan would tell you that if Hine was not head recruiter at Collingwood but instead suddenly available, he'd be snapped up pretty quickly as head of recruitment at another club. So yes, the former are right.

I am not a troll but a passionate Carlton fan who always had doubts about Wayne Hughes. Those doubts have proven to be correct. Is Bruce Mathieson a troll too? Guaranteeing our financial future is just one massive troll by Bruce is it all so he can also troll off about our recruiting?

In the end Jeremias I know you are a passionate Carlton fan who wants what is best for the club. Deep down you know that Hughes was not up to the job of being head recruiter (that's why he no longer has the final say). Deep down you would never want Hughes having the final say again (that's why we removed him).

My issues are with those posters who do not so much revel in the fact we are struggling, but do not care if we struggle or not as long as they boost their chances of becoming professional recruiters. They know who they are, and they have been remarkably silent since Hughes had the final say taken away from him (i.e they were embarrassingly proven wrong). They sought to always shut down debate on Hughes not out of care for the club, but for themselves. Not out of a want to see Carlton at its best, but in some vain hope that Hughes might pluck them off the forum and into a recruiting gig. They are the trolls.

For someone who is a "NEW" poster, you seem to have a fairly in depth knowledge of posters on our Board, in particular one poster you seem to single out in this thread.

You must be a reincarnated banned user as your posting style is very familiar.

 

[Omega Blue]

For someone who is a "NEW" poster, you seem to have a fairly in depth knowledge of posters on our Board, in particular one poster you seem to single out in this thread.

You must be a reincarnated banned user as your posting style is very familiar.

not meaning to butt into an agrument i dont belong in, but the term new poster is a loose term i for one read bigfooty forums for 5years before actually signing up. so it isn't totally impossible for someone to have developed a opinion of a poster before they actually start posting.

 

[stuckinhill]

For someone who is a "NEW" poster, you seem to have a fairly in depth knowledge of posters on our Board, in particular one poster you seem to single out in this thread.

You must be a reincarnated banned user as your posting style is very familiar.

All I want is for Carlton to have the best recruiting set up in the league. If you have a problem with that, ban away. End of the day, scrutiny of Wayne Hughes and what has happened with our lacklustre recruiting will occur whether I post on here or not. We're talking about Carlton's number 1 powerbroker, huge articles in the Herald Sun (see today's article Carlton founders for lack of depth) etc. All I ever wanted was the best recruiting set up at Carlton and Mathieson will ensure that . And you can bet your bottom dollar a certain poster won't be allowed anywhere near it

 

[mediumsizered]

not meaning to butt into an agrument i dont belong in, but the term new poster is a loose term i for one read bigfooty forums for 5years before actually signing up. so it isn't totally impossible for someone to have developed a opinion of a poster before they actually start posting.

You are probably the exception to the rule.

There are certain posters who have been running the same line for some years now, but manage to get themselves banned (not necessarily by the Mods on this board) & then reincarnate themselves, but are not very good at disguising the way they post. A couple of these posters would have you believe they are master recruiters & have been constantly bagging our recruiters since day dot. Same agenda, different username.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

All I want is for Carlton to have the best recruiting set up in the league. If you have a problem with that, ban away. End of the day, scrutiny of Wayne Hughes and what has happened with our lacklustre recruiting will occur whether I post on here or not. We're talking about Carlton's number 1 powerbroker, huge articles in the Herald Sun (see today's article Carlton founders for lack of depth) etc. All I ever wanted was the best recruiting set up at Carlton and Mathieson will ensure that . And you can bet your bottom dollar a certain poster won't be allowed anywhere near it

Nobody has a problem with that intention, but we do have a problem with new accounts calling out regular posters as though they have some ongoing feud with them. We have our suspicions and do not care to keep recreating the same old feuds whenever somebody registers a new alias. Regrettably when posters do try to slip back into the system, they lack the foresight to change the posting style that saw them out the last time. Baffling.

 

[Omega Blue]

You are probably the exception to the rule.

There are certain posters who have been running the same line for some years now, but manage to get themselves banned (not necessarily by the Mods on this board) & then reincarnate themselves, but are not very good at disguising the way they post. A couple of these posters would have you believe they are master recruiters & have been constantly bagging our recruiters since day dot. Same agenda, different username.

fair call, haters gonna hate i guess.

 

[mediumsizered]

All I want is for Carlton to have the best recruiting set up in the league. If you have a problem with that, ban away. End of the day, scrutiny of Wayne Hughes and what has happened with our lacklustre recruiting will occur whether I post on here or not. We're talking about Carlton's number 1 powerbroker, huge articles in the Herald Sun (see today's article Carlton founders for lack of depth) etc. All I ever wanted was the best recruiting set up at Carlton and Mathieson will ensure that . And you can bet your bottom dollar a certain poster won't be allowed anywhere near it

Mathieson had the chance to ensure this when he was a member of the Collins board (he would have been on the board when Hughes was appointed). He went MIA & has now decided to buy back into club politics & has the hide to accuse the current hierarchy of the club of being a "boys club", despite having been a member of the board which included Collins, Silvagni, Hunter & David McKay.

With respect to Mathieson, whose contribution to our club is greatly appreciated, I think his sudden interest in our recruiting & our coaching staff is disingenuous, to say the least.

 

[stuckinhill]

You are probably the exception to the rule.

There are certain posters who have been running the same line for some years now, but manage to get themselves banned (not necessarily by the Mods on this board) & then reincarnate themselves, but are not very good at disguising the way they post. A couple of these posters would have you believe they are master recruiters & have been constantly bagging our recruiters since day dot. Same agenda, different username.

Of course the barrage of abuse that went the other way gets completely ignored. Ultimately, those posters who have been QUESTIONING our recruiters since day dot are really really really unhappy to be right.

The reality is those posters never fancied themselves as recruiters. They just wanted what is best for the club and you know it. The only poster that fancied himself as a recruiter was the one that always leapt to Hughes' defence. So if you're going to use that line against the posters that QUESTIONED our recruiters, it can be used against the posters that supported them. Can't have it both ways (or you can but that's not fair is it).

The ONLY PEOPLE with an agenda that put themself ahead of the Carlton football club are those that wanted to be recruiters and sought to stifle debate on our recruiting in the hope of getting plucked off the forum.

Can't accuse Bruce Mathieson of having an agenda other than what is best for Carlton I'm afraid. And if posters were questioning recruiters from day dot like Mathieson is now.... then it's just a shame the club didn't as well. Who knows how many years we have been set back by Hughes having the final say?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Mathieson had the chance to ensure this when he was a member of the Collins board (he would have been on the board when Hughes was appointed). He went MIA & has now decided to buy back into club politics & has the hide to accuse the current hierarchy of the club of being a "boys club", despite having been a member of the board which included Collins, Silvagni, Hunter & David McKay.

With respect to Mathieson, whose contribution to our club is greatly appreciated, I think his sudden interest in our recruiting & our coaching staff is disingenuous, to say the least.

Far too much important being placed on the Matheson article. Aside from his financial investment in the club, exactly what makes him qualified to judge recruiting? His opinion holds as much weight as your average BF poster so I'm not sure why it is being held up as a beacon of knowledge.

 

[stuckinhill]

Mathieson had the chance to ensure this when he was a member of the Collins board (he would have been on the board when Hughes was appointed). He went MIA & has now decided to buy back into club politics & has the hide to accuse the current hierarchy of the club of being a "boys club", despite having been a member of the board which included Collins, Silvagni, Hunter & David McKay.

With respect to Mathieson, whose contribution to our club is greatly appreciated, I think his sudden interest in our recruiting & our coaching staff is disingenuous, to say the least.

Look, if people want to stick up for Hughes, that's fine. If they do it out of self-interest, that's fine as well. But to go and pay out Mathieson is in my opinion disgraceful.

Do you have any idea how stuffed our finances would be if Mathieson didn't set us up financially? People go on about player development, football department spending. I can tell you we'd be struggling if Mathieson had not given up some of his hard earned to help our beloved club.

Mathieson was one board member among many. A board makes its decisions collectively. Who knows what went on behind closed doors? It is unlikely Hughes would have been a board appointment anyway. The notion that one board member could decide who our head recruiter should be is ludicrous.

Bruce Mathieson has done a tremendous amount for this football club and should be praised. If someone is going to criticise him that is one thing, but to do so on the basis of him volunteering to serve as a board member and then clutching at straws to find some criticism is wrong.

 

[Omega Blue]

you really have to ask what one expects from a recruiting department.
do you expect that every top pick will be an outright success, no.
do you expect that every pick over 30 will be a fantastic slider, no.
and do you expect to unearth countless rookie gems, hell no.
yet our recruiting department has uncovered many rookie gems (jamieson, garlett, jacobs, betts)
found our share of mid draft best 22 players (armfield, robinson)
and have picked solid 200 game first round picks (murphy, kennedy, gibbs, kruezer)
We have also traded 3 players into the team that are currently best 22 players. (judd, mclean, warnock)
our recruiting has by no means been poor.

 

[stuckinhill]

Far too much important being placed on the Matheson article. Aside from his financial investment in the club, exactly what makes him qualified to judge recruiting? His opinion holds as much weight as your average BF poster so I'm not sure why it is being held up as a beacon of knowledge.

The latest article today (Carlton founders out of its depth) does not just cite the Mathieson article FYI. It also notes that Hughes had the final say stripped away from him (which is clearly significant). So you might not rate Mathieson, but are you also going to question whoever made the call to make sure Hughes never had the final say at draft day again (a mighty fine thing too I might add!)

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Of course the barrage of abuse that went the other way gets completely ignored. Ultimately, those posters who have been QUESTIONING our recruiters since day dot are really really really unhappy to be right.

For mine, anybody that questions any club employee from 'day dot' has to be driving an agenda. So you were anti-Hughes before he had even made a decision, yet it is those that argued with you that were full of self importance and looking to set themselves up as recruiters?

How many years are we going to do this dance? Have the other Carlton forums tired of it again, and it is back to our turn again?