Matt Rendall

[Macca19]

Re: Matt Rendell

It would be good, just for one year, that the recruiters release their list of who they consider the top 50 players in the draft that year.

Will never ever happen, but it would be bloody interesting to see the quirks and differences in opinion.

 

[Elite Crow]

Re: Matt Rendell

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



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

Where did I question Rendells honesty???? The credibility issue I raised was with his judgement when ranking players.

As for showing you proof, get real. If you dont think this was raised then a) you dont read the paper b) listen to radio c) talk to anyone about footy besides on Big Footy.

 

[jo172]

Re: Matt Rendell

Where did I question Rendells honesty???? The credibility issue I raised was with his judgement when ranking players..

cred·i·ble Audio Help /ˈkrɛdəbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kred-uh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement.

I think what you're talking about is capability as a recruiting manager, because you clearly misunderstand the word credibility.

As for showing you proof, get real. If you dont think this was raised then a) you dont read the paper b) listen to radio c) talk to anyone about footy besides on Big Footy.

It was mentioned once or twice in the newspapers and on 5aa in the week following him saying it. And I take from your response that you couldn't even find them?

The only people obsessing about it are people who enjoy getting stuck into the Adelaide Crows administration for whatever stupid reason they have.

Not that I'm implying anyone in particular, but if the shoe fits ...

 

[Elite Crow]

Re: Matt Rendell

I think what you're talking about is capability as a recruiting manager, because you clearly misunderstand the word credibility.



It was mentioned once or twice in the newspapers and on 5aa in the week following him saying it. And I take from your response that you couldn't even find them?

The only people obsessing about it are people who enjoy getting stuck into the Adelaide Crows administration for whatever stupid reason they have.

Not that I'm implying anyone in particular, but if the shoe fits ...

Thanks you know how to use a dictionary, I particularly like this part:

a credible statement. But why didnt you include all of the info such as:

Synonyms 1. plausible, likely, reasonable, tenable.

Am I obsessing about it? I raised a topic for discussion. I dont lose sleep over it.

You bracket anyone who raises valid concerns as having a vendetta for their own stupid reasons. There are also some other types of supporters, those that can be summed up as:

gullible:
Synonyms credulous, trusting, naive, innocent, simple, green

Not that I'm implying anyone in particular, but if the shoe fits ...

 

[Freddy Bassett]

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.

Yep, fair call too

 

[TheVelourFog]

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.

Scott Clayton said that if Jarrad Grant didn't end up the best player in the draft after Kruezer and Cotchin that he would swim to Williamstown Beach.

I guess he's saying that Grant would have been ranked 3rd in his calculations and he's putting even more pressure on the kid. I'm sure other clubs didn't rate Grant as 3rd best. Every recruiter says it, its just that you only take notice of what the Crows say.

 

[Mismatched]

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.

Never did he say this, but hey, if it makes for a good argument keep saying. I think you'll find he said we got 3, maybe 4 blokes in his top 20 and 2 in his top 30. He came out and said he didn't rate Kite that highly on what he had done but did believe he could be a top 20 pick in the next years draft.

Also, what has happened to suggest that he may be wrong? Otten, Walker and Kite are all playing consistently good SANFL football and would probably be playing AFL football at a less conservative club, Dangefield and Cook can't be judged till next year really and Jacky has the coaching staff all excited, so I don't see why we shouldn't be either.

I think he's done pretty well, he's not going to get every pick exactly right, but by what we have seen so far this year, he has been pretty well justified in saying what he did.

 

[SellarStardom]

People forgot that the top 20-30 players at 17 and 18 years of age doesn't necessarily mean top 20-30 at 25 years of age. Players develop differently, some fall away, some blossom and some continue to play at the same level throughout their careers. Its all luck when you pick a guy up at 17, could be wonderful, could be a dud, most of the champs running around in the AFL these days were not even top 10 in the draft when they came in. Its luck and educated guesses really. Dangerfield will be bloody good but may never be a superstar, but then what counts is a club of bloody good players working together, that's what Geelong has

 

[Crow Magnum Man]

I believe that Dangefield was the right selection for our team as our greatest need is speed and someone who can break lines. Also although he may have been picked at ten whose to say he would not have been picked up earlier if he hadn't told clubs he would be staying at home for year 12 (I've heard clubs say they would not have picked him but they wont say that because they would not want to upset the players they picked)

 

[-VC-]

Re: Matt Rendell

I think third is a big call by the club, but Dangefield brings a hell of a lot to the table. Maybe I've been somewhat blinkered by our selection of him but I definitely rate him ahead of most of the Top 10 from the last draft (but behind two outside the Top 10 - Veszpremi and Rioli). I must validate this comment by saying I did not rate inside the Top 10 prior to the draft, but this is based on the respective performances so far of the draftees at various levels combined with the potential they showed in 2007 and earlier.

It's important to note that Danger has improved a hell of a lot this year and the club are to be commended for recognising his scope for improvement, as well as the physical preparation they gave him for this year by giving him a pre-season.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

****en hell.

He has the balls to go hard in a draft no one rated (and obvioulsy he did) and it looks like hes uncovered atleast 5 or 6 potential 100 gamers.

And he cops shit for mentioning his rating of Danger at 3.

 

[Crow-mo]

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.

you take these public statement thingy's too seriously.

 

[FAITH]

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.

100% correct!
I like Matt he seems to know what he is doing far better than Fantasia.
If you look at the 2006 Super Draft only 2 out of the 9 players look to be great (Not Good Enough!)
And yet in the 2007 weak draft probably 5-6 of those players look really good.
I wish Matt was in charge of our recruiting for the 2006 super draft. Think he could have bagged us another 6-7 great players.
Doubt he would have picked Sellar though.
Love Matts honesty regarding where he rates players. Danger was 3rd for us, but on pure talent Rioli was 1 but attitude sucked. Good to know.

The new wetsthoff he said was crap!

The only cross i have against Matt was the way he handled the Hudson trade. Not happy with the picks we got!

 

[Trip]

Re: Matt Rendell

The only cross i have against Matt was the way he handled the Hudson trade. Not happy with the picks we got!

I think it was a matter of at least getting a pick. We tried to get a better pick and if we kept persiting he would have ended up in the pre season draft.

I really rate Matt Rendell highly, I think last years trade/draft period will be one of our best but only time will tell. IMO Matt Rendell is a gun, much better than Fantasia.

 

[cmndstab]

As others have said, ranking means more than just footy talent. It was touted before the draft that Rioli was easily the most talented player in the draft (for quite a few drafts even) but interviewed poorly, seemed to have an attitude problem and his skinfolds weren't awesome. The Crows, under Craig, have made a big focus on recruiting players who have their heads screwed on straight. Dangerfield, judging by the few interviews I've seen, is one of those people. Then you take into account the Crows' massive need for speed, and the impending retirements of two star-quality midfielders in Edwards and Goodwin, and it starts to become clear why Dangerfield rated number 3.

I really wish I could see what Rendall's top 20 was. That would be extremely interesting.

 

[KUNG FU]

Another point, I think you will find that most of the first round picks last year were all rated extremely highly by that particular club and not so much by others. This is often the case with all picks for all drafts, but not to the extent that it was apparent in the 2007 draft, and even moreso rarely in the first round. Of course there is no way to tell for certain, but after Kreuzer, Cotchin and maybe Morton, almost all clubs were intent on their particular recruit. Masten, Grant, Myers, Palmer, Henderson, McEvoy, Tarrant, Lobbe & Taylor were all rated with a high differential between the other clubs, because for all they brought to the table, they all had significant questions over certain aspects of their game and/or for various reasons certain clubs had attachments to certain players - obvious needs like Geelong with Taylor or Saints with McEvoy or Masten having close connections to WCE. There were a number of draft experts who absolutely nailed the first round pick predictions and their clubs because it was obvious that the Dogs rated Grant way higher than anyone else, just as Rendell rated Danger much higher than anyone else.

This in part I think has to do with the perceived weakness at the top end of this draft. Clubs were comparatively more 'needs basis' inclined early on.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

Never did he say this, but hey, if it makes for a good argument keep saying. I think you'll find he said we got 3, maybe 4 blokes in his top 20 and 2 in his top 30. He came out and said he didn't rate Kite that highly on what he had done but did believe he could be a top 20 pick in the next years draft.

Also, what has happened to suggest that he may be wrong? Otten, Walker and Kite are all playing consistently good SANFL football and would probably be playing AFL football at a less conservative club, Dangefield and Cook can't be judged till next year really and Jacky has the coaching staff all excited, so I don't see why we shouldn't be either.

I think he's done pretty well, he's not going to get every pick exactly right, but by what we have seen so far this year, he has been pretty well justified in saying what he did.

Im not saying last year wasnt one of our best ever years in drafting, potentially at this stage of course. Im just saying that by stating we got 6 or 7 of in his opinion the best 30 ( thanks for the correction) is a big big call. I was just agreeing with the op and by no means trying to demean Rendall. But in saying that, if he truly believes we got 7 of the top 30, Id love to know how he goes about ranking his players. Thats all. No malice attatched

 

[Freddy Bassett]

you take these public statement thingy's too seriously.

Yeah possibly. As there is no book to read on it, I suppose its all I can go by and what all my fellow BF experts are thinking

 

[KUNG FU]

Im not saying last year wasnt one of our best ever years in drafting, potentially at this stage of course. Im just saying that by stating we got 6 or 7 of in his opinion the best 30 ( thanks for the correction) is a big big call. I was just agreeing with the op and by no means trying to demean Rendall. But in saying that, if he truly believes we got 7 of the top 30, Id love to know how he goes about ranking his players. Thats all. No malice attatched

From my memory he said 6. Kite was by Rendell's account a very speculative pick, something along the lines of. Also Walker was part of that original 6. So out of the 5 remaining players, only Cooke at #38 and Armstrong at #59 were actually taken outside of the top 30, which I think would be standard at that point anyway.

 

[IddyBiddy]

Re: Matt Rendell

I think third is a big call by the club, but Dangefield brings a hell of a lot to the table. Maybe I've been somewhat blinkered by our selection of him but I definitely rate him ahead of most of the Top 10 from the last draft (but behind two outside the Top 10 - Veszpremi and Rioli). .

Ah, the love affair continues...time to let him go VC, let him go...

 

[-VC-]

Re: Matt Rendell

Ah, the love affair continues...time to let him go VC, let him go...

He'll debut before the end of the year. I just hope Paul Roos doesn't gay him up like he has with Craig Bird.

He's been in good form in the Canberra League, just needs to get his fitness base up a bit more but with quite a few Sydney injuries and his total awesomeness I reckon we'll see him soon.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: Matt Rendell

He'll debut before the end of the year. I just hope Paul Roos doesn't gay him up like he has with Craig Bird.

He's been in good form in the Canberra League, just needs to get his fitness base up a bit more but with quite a few Sydney injuries and his total awesomeness I reckon we'll see him soon.

Dangerfield > Vezmynameisridiculousmi

 

[-VC-]

Re: Matt Rendell

Dangerfield > Vezmynameisridiculousmi

Paddy > Paddy

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: Matt Rendell

Paddy > Paddy

I hate you.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

Re: Matt Rendell

100% correct!
I like Matt he seems to know what he is doing far better than Fantasia.
If you look at the 2006 Super Draft only 2 out of the 9 players look to be great (Not Good Enough!)
And yet in the 2007 weak draft probably 5-6 of those players look really good.
I wish Matt was in charge of our recruiting for the 2006 super draft. Think he could have bagged us another 6-7 great players.
Doubt he would have picked Sellar though.
Love Matts honesty regarding where he rates players. Danger was 3rd for us, but on pure talent Rioli was 1 but attitude sucked. Good to know.

The new wetsthoff he said was crap!

The only cross i have against Matt was the way he handled the Hudson trade. Not happy with the picks we got!

I dont care who was our recruiting manager, if they didnt take Sellar with pick 14 I would of vomitted and Im sure almost every Crow supporter would of.With hindsight though..........