They would've screwed it up.Martin 1, Naitanui 2.
Would have been a fairly different decade for Melbourne.
Martin would be at Sydney and NitNat back in Perth.
They would've screwed it up.Martin 1, Naitanui 2.
Would have been a fairly different decade for Melbourne.
I disagree. I think the RFC were always going to take Martin if he was available, regardless of what pick/s we had.The logic behind taking Scully and Trengove ahead of Martin was sound at the time. Both were very highly rated juniors, had great leadership potential and were probably safer bets compared to Martin. The decision was vindicated somewhat during their first two seasons when both averaged 20+ disposals and looked like jets but without the behavioral “challenges” Dusty had.
The problem was development and culture. Scully famously abandoning an end of season trip not liking what he saw from teammates then leaving for GWS after only two years. Trengove being burdened with the captaincy after only two seasons and then having to battle a serious foot problem which eventually ruined his entire career. Not isolated instances either with Melbourne proving capable of destroying plenty of talented youngsters promising careers in subsequent years.
Martin has gone on to become a legend of the game but I’d bet a significant amount money that if we had picks 1 and 2 in that draft we’d have done the same as Melbourne and taken Scully and Trengove.
Both Scully and Trengove were private school boys which fitted Melbourne mantra. There was an interview from someone at Melbourne at the time that said that was the main reason why they recruited them.The logic behind taking Scully and Trengove ahead of Martin was sound at the time. Both were very highly rated juniors, had great leadership potential and were probably safer bets compared to Martin. The decision was vindicated somewhat during their first two seasons when both averaged 20+ disposals and looked like jets but without the behavioral “challenges” Dusty had.
The problem was development and culture. Scully famously abandoning an end of season trip not liking what he saw from teammates then leaving for GWS after only two years. Trengove being burdened with the captaincy after only two seasons and then having to battle a serious foot problem which eventually ruined his entire career. Not isolated instances either with Melbourne proving capable of destroying plenty of talented youngsters promising careers in subsequent years.
Martin has gone on to become a legend of the game but I’d bet a significant amount money that if we had picks 1 and 2 in that draft we’d have done the same as Melbourne and taken Scully and Trengove.
Serves them rightBoth Scully and Trengove were private school boys which fitted Melbourne mantra. There was an interview from someone at Melbourne at the time that said that was the main reason why they recruited them.
Maybe Francis had a big big night before the draft n was telling the coach he was still feeling a bit Dusty n didn't realise his mic was on.I reckon our recruiting process at that stage was Frank Jackson in a room with a twenty cent coin.
When questioned, I hope you gave them a couple of Dusty's finest don't argues.I was reading the ‘your club’s best player of the 2000’s’ article on the the AFL site while having a crap at my mother in laws. I clicked on dustys highlights and they went on forever. I looked after - almost 10 minutes without 2020. Other players went for 3 or 4. There was a fair bit of pounding on the door and questions about crowd noise after. I strutted out jubilant!
Oh, the serenity.I was reading the ‘your club’s best player of the 2000’s’ article on the the AFL site while having a crap at my mother in laws. I clicked on dustys highlights and they went on forever. I looked after - almost 10 minutes without 2020. Other players went for 3 or 4. There was a fair bit of pounding on the door and questions about crowd noise after. I strutted out jubilant!
The logic behind taking Scully and Trengove ahead of Martin was sound at the time. Both were very highly rated juniors, had great leadership potential and were probably safer bets compared to Martin. The decision was vindicated somewhat during their first two seasons when both averaged 20+ disposals and looked like jets but without the behavioral “challenges” Dusty had.
The problem was development and culture. Scully famously abandoning an end of season trip not liking what he saw from teammates then leaving for GWS after only two years. Trengove being burdened with the captaincy after only two seasons and then having to battle a serious foot problem which eventually ruined his entire career. Not isolated instances either with Melbourne proving capable of destroying plenty of talented youngsters promising careers in subsequent years.
Martin has gone on to become a legend of the game but I’d bet a significant amount money that if we had picks 1 and 2 in that draft we’d have done the same as Melbourne and taken Scully and Trengove.
An even more pertinent case to me is Cotchin and Kreuzer.Agree with this. If recruiting was the problem of poor clubs, you’d expect to find 50 / 50 examples of both successful and unsuccessful clubs making recruiting mistakes. But that’s not the case.
I say that because one player is never enough to turn the fortunes of a club around, whether it’s Chris Judd or Gary Ablett. Poor clubs remain poor, but they remain poor even when they trade in... so their draft failures must really be development failures.
Young men with potential do not have a fixed, destined value. Dusty isn’t Dusty under Melbourne’s coach and system, and Scully/Trengove aren’t Scully/Trengove under our system.
I hope Melbourne think it’s a recruiting error though. If so, they’ll be thinking “Whoops! We drafted the wrong guy. That’s why we suck. Flip a coin and we would’ve been successful like Richmond!”
I reckon the best recruiting decision we’ve ever made was when Benny Gale and Dimma took full responsibility for the state of the club. That attitude filtered down and everyone involved took responsibility for their part. Now we have a club where every department makes great decisions on a regular basis, which allows us to end up with most of our picks becoming fulfilled talents on-field.
It’s hard not to elevate individual players (especially someone like Dusty), but in my opinion perhaps outside a select few cultural leaders, it probably wouldn’t have mattered who we drafted for the most part. Look at Houli for Essendon. He became a legend under Dimma, and so did many others.
I’ve always felt that if we’d had the #1 pick, we would have selected Kreuzer, because we really needed a ruck, and they’re hard to come by. I think at the time a number of analysts actually rated Cotchin as the better player, but Carlton felt they were well set up for midfielders, but didn’t have a ruck.An even more pertinent case to me is Cotchin and Kreuzer.
Best mates and taken one and two.
If you had to bet at the time you would take Kreuzer - great leadership, great skills, great build and great attitude right from the start.
Then the injuries set in and they treated him pretty poorly about the leadership and killed his confidence.
Cotchin early days was a bit selfish getting cheap stats and lost in leadership.
Then he takes the wife's advice and changes everything from his style of play to his approach to his mates and even the game itself.
Voila! Now a club legend and accepted as one of the best on-field leaders in the league
Speaking of Trent we as supporters and the RFC owe Trent a huge debt of gratitude. He's played a big role in Dusty's development off field. There's is a very special friendship.An even more pertinent case to me is Cotchin and Kreuzer.
Best mates and taken one and two.
If you had to bet at the time you would take Kreuzer - great leadership, great skills, great build and great attitude right from the start.
Then the injuries set in and they treated him pretty poorly about the leadership and killed his confidence.
Cotchin early days was a bit selfish getting cheap stats and lost in leadership.
Then he takes the wife's advice and changes everything from his style of play to his approach to his mates and even the game itself.
Voila! Now a club legend and accepted as one of the best on-field leaders in the league
That is unfair on Richmond and Jackson. We were all over Martin (as were the Swans). Martin was no secret though, he dominated for Vic Country (and had Astbury among others as a team mate). The only ones that deserve a whack are Melbourne.I think it was a bit of a reflection on how things were done back then as well. That was my first little glimpse of AFL recruiting and it was a shambles.
Us getting Dustin and him being a player was a kiss on the old fella from the man upstairs I think. The kid had spent a year and a bit in the TAC cup program and no-one from Richmond even had a conversation with anyone from the organisation. I reckon our recruiting process at that stage was Frank Jackson in a room with a twenty cent coin.
Not sure that is true but is more common than you think regardless. Seriouslyi, what is the point of talking to his coach - akin to talking with Michael Turner about Geelong Falcons kids. The last thing a seasoned recruiter wants is a nuffie junior coach talking a club into, or out of a player. Martin was a highly touted junior but was not a certainty at 3 - Frank and Richmond deserve credit for taking him.Just the facts as far as I see it. Having a kid part of a TAC cup squad for 16-18 months and then not even having a single conversation with any of the coaches who had watched every minute of training and playing he had done in that time, as well as having a pretty good knowledge of him as a person is pretty ordinary work I think.
Agree with this. If recruiting was the problem of poor clubs, you’d expect to find 50 / 50 examples of both successful and unsuccessful clubs making recruiting mistakes. But that’s not the case.
I say that because one player is never enough to turn the fortunes of a club around, whether it’s Chris Judd or Gary Ablett. Poor clubs remain poor, but they remain poor even when they trade in... so their draft failures must really be development failures.
Young men with potential do not have a fixed, destined value. Dusty isn’t Dusty under Melbourne’s coach and system, and Scully/Trengove aren’t Scully/Trengove under our system.
I hope Melbourne think it’s a recruiting error though. If so, they’ll be thinking “Whoops! We drafted the wrong guy. That’s why we suck. Flip a coin and we would’ve been successful like Richmond!”
I reckon the best recruiting decision we’ve ever made was when Benny Gale and Dimma took full responsibility for the state of the club. That attitude filtered down and everyone involved took responsibility for their part. Now we have a club where every department makes great decisions on a regular basis, which allows us to end up with most of our picks becoming fulfilled talents on-field.
It’s hard not to elevate individual players (especially someone like Dusty), but in my opinion perhaps outside a select few cultural leaders, it probably wouldn’t have mattered who we drafted for the most part. Look at Houli for Essendon. He became a legend under Dimma, and so did many others.
Yes development is hugely important. A sobering reminder that we’ve just lost two of the best in Fly & Leppa..
Sorry waking to the news that I'm surrounded by the rammifications of Gladys' outbreak haven't put me in a great mood today.thanks Oldy,
I really needed a sobering reminder.
I think 69 days is a sufficient premiership celebration?
There was a 3-4 year period maybe 2005-8? when Wallace and Miller were in charge, and when the club had a pre draft review night at Punt road in which members were allowed some insight into which sort of players and in some cases which players, were under consideration. Great Richmond night for those outside the club during which I recall meeting Phantom, Lutt, Dyer 'ere and other PRE luminaries.Just the facts as far as I see it. Having a kid part of a TAC cup squad for 16-18 months and then not even having a single conversation with any of the coaches who had watched every minute of training and playing he had done in that time, as well as having a pretty good knowledge of him as a person is pretty ordinary work I think.