Luke Williams

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have worked with Luke previously and can confirm he is as professional and prudent as you can possibly get.

He will be looking after the state league competitions and scouting at his new club. The main reason why he left Carlton is his job brief changed when he initially got there.

At Geelong, Thompson and Scott gave Wells & Luke a brief as to what type of players they required in their list management decisions. They also had a dedicated list manager who would relay this message.

At Carlton, despite McKay, Malthouse was effectively the list manager and called the shots even telling Rogers and Luke what specific draftees to recruit after they had given him their dossier. I can't say this is the reason he left but Malthouse was told or taken away from having a direct role in recruiting in Collingwood after Hine and Walsh believed the Geelong model worked best without the coach coming in.
 
Possibly. Also, we only had 3 recruiters. Our recruiting has improved a lot since we went from 1 to 3. Hopefully 3 to 4 will see another jump. Wouldn't mind us getting another one at some stage to look after the 2 non-footy states.


There you go RFC_Official tigs is putting in his resume for a recruiting position ;) I'm sure he'll happily move to sunny Queensland to watch football.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I have worked with Luke previously and can confirm he is as professional and prudent as you can possibly get.

He will be looking after the state league competitions and scouting at his new club. The main reason why he left Carlton is his job brief changed when he initially got there.

At Geelong, Thompson and Scott gave Wells & Luke a brief as to what type of players they required in their list management decisions. They also had a dedicated list manager who would relay this message.

At Carlton, despite McKay, Malthouse was effectively the list manager and called the shots even telling Rogers and Luke what specific draftees to recruit after they had given him their dossier. I can't say this is the reason he left but Malthouse was told or taken away from having a direct role in recruiting in Collingwood after Hine and Walsh believed the Geelong model worked best without the coach coming in.


Well lets hope Carlton keep giving Malthouse the world because having your coach as list manager is a great choice, just see Wallace aka The List Manager at Richmond, Neeld at Melbourne and Ross Lyon at Saint Kilda or even the other way round where you list manager/football manager becomes the coach like Connelly and Schwab at Melbourne.
 
I think Nield and Watters show being successful working under someone talented doesn't necessarily make you talented.
Will be interesting to see how he goes if he takes over from Jackson in the future.


Why would he take over from Jackson when we have other recruiters who have been here for a long while? Who said he was coming over as a 2ic?
 
Wanted to join a team on the up and be part of a successful few years coming up! Good choice Luke and welcome aboard! :thumbsu:
 
I heard from a respectable source within the industry that there was in fact disagreement over the draft choices at Carlton. In light of the additional information that has now been revealed, it seems that perhaps this was the straw that broke the camel's back. You don't leave a new job within 12 months unless there is major disagreement and disharmony. Personal problems were cited as the reason for departure but with Luke's appointment at Richmond it suggests that this was not the full story.

Anyway, all the best for next season. Your drafting, especially first round, has been quality the last five or so years and with the addition of Luke, I would expect that to remain the case.
 
Well lets hope Carlton keep giving Malthouse the world because having your coach as list manager is a great choice, just see Wallace aka The List Manager at Richmond, Neeld at Melbourne and Ross Lyon at Saint Kilda or even the other way round where you list manager/football manager becomes the coach like Connelly and Schwab at Melbourne.


Rogers is out head recruiter not Malthouse.

Having a subordinate cracking the sads in decision making process that doesn't directly involve him, is pretty ordinary. Don't you think?
 
Why would he take over from Jackson when we have other recruiters who have been here for a long while? Who said he was coming over as a 2ic?
No one. I said "if" not " when" he takes over.

Easy to be a great assistant. The real test is when you are accountable for the decisions.

Sound like he wasn't happy with the people who will have to live with the consequences of the decisions.
 
Rogers is out head recruiter not Malthouse.

Having a subordinate cracking the sads in decision making process that doesn't directly involve him, is pretty ordinary. Don't you think?


I was responding to a statement regarding the List manager at Carlton not the head recruiter. And the statement said he wasn't sure how much what he said with regards to Malthouse and McKay affected William's decision.

And depending on circumstances i don't think its ordinary. If you want to work for the best and in the best environment and your organisation doesn't want to adapt to what is considered industry best practice but instead use an outdated system then i think its the right choice to crack the sads and leave.
 
No one. I said "if" not " when" he takes over.

Easy to be a great assistant. The real test is when you are accountable for the decisions.

Sound like he wasn't happy with the people who will have to live with the consequences of the decisions.

But you inferred it and I just wondered why you would bring it up at all. From what I remember it wasn't even stated he was a head recruiter in waiting.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I think Nield and Watters show being successful working under someone talented doesn't necessarily make you talented.

I think both Watters and Neeld are probably tallented guys. There mistake was to take Mick's hard-ass approach and apply it as rookie coaches. Mick gets away with it as he has runs on the board and the players respect him.

Neeld rocked up to Melbourne and immidiatley marginalised senior players such as Moloney, the reigning B&F winner, by naming a couple of kids as co-captains and publically saying that while it wasn't ideal, these were the best leaders he had to work with?! From that moment on, was always going to stuggle to have the players on his side...
 
I think both Watters and Neeld are probably tallented guys. There mistake was to take Mick's hard-ass approach and apply it as rookie coaches. Mick gets away with it as he has runs on the board and the players respect him.

Neeld rocked up to Melbourne and immidiatley marginalised senior players such as Moloney, the reigning B&F winner, by naming a couple of kids as co-captains and publically saying that while it wasn't ideal, these were the best leaders he had to work with?! From that moment on, was always going to stuggle to have the players on his side...
A mans got to know his limitations. Clearly Neeld wasn't up to the jobs he was employed to do by making that many mistakes before a ball had even been kicked. Watters to a lesser extent as he was always deal a crap hand that wasn't going to end well.
 
I was responding to a statement regarding the List manager at Carlton not the head recruiter. And the statement said he wasn't sure how much what he said with regards to Malthouse and McKay affected William's decision.

FWIW we don't have a list manager, we have a list management committee. So there's a hole in that statement :p

And I don't think Carlton supporters are concerned Williams didn't agree with our draft choices, considering both Geelong and Sydney wanted Cripps with their first pick (pick 15 & 16 vs our 13 - so not that much of a reach as others are proclaiming) and Geelong wanted Giles with their third round pick which was only a couple of picks after our 3rd round pick we used on him.
 
Still waiting for evidence of this appointment.
Me too.
Nobody can get hold of him.
Some of my other mates from that circle of friends are in contact with him all the time and they can't get in contact with him either.
The only thing I know for sure is he despised it at Carlton.Too much politics.
Apart from this thread I know nothing about Luke coming to the tigers. does anyone?
 
Rogers is out head recruiter not Malthouse.

Having a subordinate cracking the sads in decision making process that doesn't directly involve him, is pretty ordinary. Don't you think?
Rogers' drafting has been a bit iffy though.

On a side note this whole Extractor thing sounds more like a Big footy circle jerk than the kind of objective conversations that you would expect from a recruiting department.
 
FWIW we don't have a list manager, we have a list management committee. So there's a hole in that statement :p

And I don't think Carlton supporters are concerned Williams didn't agree with our draft choices, considering both Geelong and Sydney wanted Cripps with their first pick (pick 15 & 16 vs our 13 - so not that much of a reach as others are proclaiming) and Geelong wanted Giles with their third round pick which was only a couple of picks after our 3rd round pick we used on him.


I maintain that Carlton should have gotten McCarthy at 13, and whilst Cripps may be a better player, sometimes you have to put the needs of the team before your wants.

That is the reason why we took Vickery, and Why we took Conca. Yes there were more talented players on the board, but those two filled an Immediate need at the club at the time. Both are established best 22 players, and our side is substantially better with those two in them, compared to without. You only have to look at how we went when Vickery did his shoulder.

Cripps will be a very solid AFL player, but Carlton really seem to be going for a best available approach, and sometimes, that is the wrong approach to take.
 
Rogers' drafting has been a bit iffy though.

On a side note this whole Extractor thing sounds more like a Big footy circle jerk than the kind of objective conversations that you would expect from a recruiting department.

Which of his selections were iffy?
Menzel? Graham? Temay? One of this years draftees?

It was only his second year this year. Tough to judge on such a small sample.
Hughes was Carlton's recruiter prior to that and as I've said on our board many time over, the recruitment wasn't half as bad as for the development.

Whether it be Williams, Rogers, Dordoro or even Wells, recruiting is one part of the process and without a strong structure and quality development good players can fall through the cracks.
Wonder what we may have thought of Wells' recruiting had have the 2006 Geelong team not got together and made a pact to one another? We'll never know.
 
I maintain that Carlton should have gotten McCarthy at 13, and whilst Cripps may be a better player, sometimes you have to put the needs of the team before your wants.

That is the reason why we took Vickery, and Why we took Conca. Yes there were more talented players on the board, but those two filled an Immediate need at the club at the time. Both are established best 22 players, and our side is substantially better with those two in them, compared to without. You only have to look at how we went when Vickery did his shoulder.

Cripps will be a very solid AFL player, but Carlton really seem to be going for a best available approach, and sometimes, that is the wrong approach to take.

McCarthy is such a good forward that GWS want to turn him into a defender ;)

But in all seriousness, I don't rate McCarthy worthy of pick 13. Granted we need a key forward, as do a number of clubs who overlooked McCarthy, but I prefer Cripps at 13 then McCarthy. I'd much rather we pick best available with our first round pick then go needs based and reach for someone who although fits a need, doesn't have the talent worthy of their pick. And FWIW Cripps does fill a need. As has been pointed out on this thread, apparently we have no quality mids post-Judd ;)
 
Cripps will be a very solid AFL player, but Carlton really seem to be going for a best available approach, and sometimes, that is the wrong approach to take.

Not best available at all.
I know it's not a Richmond discussion but it was interesting for Rogers say that he'll recruit the best players for Carlton.
Richmond have probably been doing that since drafting Martin. That's not to take away from Martins potential but sometimes you wonder whether all that effort could be better used spreading it across the board.

Teams don't need one player taking up too many resources any more.
It's just too hard and if Richmond could have grabbed a top three pick for Martin this year, it may have just been a quick good-bye.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top