Mitchell Clark

[The_General]

in his time at the club he has used 3 earlyish picks on talls schulz in 02 in a deal that cost us pick 2 jason torney and a slipping down the order of the rest of our picks.  patterson in 04 at pick 16 where he overlooked better credentialled players and waited until our 4th pick on a tall. and cleve hughes in 05 at pick24 a pick he said he wasnt going to use on a tall but we got lucky and hughes slipped. as for how good these 3 will be well theres a huge question marks over pattison and schulzand thats not having a go at the 2 boys the fact is they have deficiencies that are bloody worrying.

we shouldnt be relying on luck to get quality talls on the list.which seems to be the way miller is going about his business. ffs he recognised the need for kpp way back in 02 and hes used just 3 earlyish picks in 4 drafts, 2 of them contentious picks and the other by chance dont tell me he has a plan.maybe i should stop calling people ferals blind bloody fools would be more apt.

Claw, the point is mate, you're basically wrong. At the pre-draft night, they handed out a detail of our roster, and where they believed everyone would fit. Long term, they mentioned that they saw Delidio playing as an inside mid, but considering we have so many of that type of player, he was playing outside. I think they had 3, maybe 4 outside mids on the list. From memory (cause I can't find the freakin thing) Roach, Tivendale, Tambling and Delidio were in this list - I could be wrong with Tambling. The inside mids were, Foley, Rodan, Cogs, Tucky, Raines, Krak and a 1 or 2 others.
TW saw the list as not having the players who can run and carry, and have the disposal skills and pace to play the role. Looking at the matrix, there's an obvious lack of KPP, especially down back. They were the 2 priorities for the draft.

It's well documented here, that Dowler, Kennedy, and Ryder would have been taken had they slipped to pick 8. It's well documented that they didn't believe Hughes was in the same class (debatable) so they ranked him slightly lower than 6 mids (varcoe, Dempsey, Muston, JON, Jones and Higgins?). Clarke was thought to have lots of talent, but questionable confidence/attitude.

If Hughes dropped to 24, he was always going to be taken. That was the PLAN. They just didn't think he'd make it that far. he did, we took him.
Everything we were told before the draft night, worked out exactly as PLANNED.
I know you have personal objections to him claw, fair enough. But to think that we were just putting on a blindfold and throwing stuff at a dartboard hoping for the best is at best, insulting.

How many successful teams have you built in the AFL anyway mate?

 

[thomas the tiger]

Claw you probably are the most feral of us all. However you are right on Millers blunder in the Kane Johnson deal (nothing against Johnno he is a good player).

 

[lamb22]

Claw you probably are the most feral of us all.  However you are right on Millers blunder in the Kane Johnson deal (nothing against Johnno he is a good player).

I think the johno draft got us Schulz and Miller will live off that next decade.

 

[Richmond United]

The current football dept is not/and should not be accountable for the mistakes of previous regimes.......this non-sensical argument is just plain pathetic!  Just because the current recruiting strategy does not align with those of the ubiquitous armchair expert it does not mean that there is no strategy/plan.

We have all discussed this before.....many believe that the modern game only has space for 4 quality kpp from a side of 22 (18 mids with flexibility to play back or forward).  Work out the ratios and the recruiting philosophy should become apparent.

Oh...and at least allow the new recruit to play a game before you launch your critique. 

One final thing......are all those people foaming at the mouth because of the non-selection of Clarke at 8 due to perceived attitude problems the same ones who baulked at the prospect of Fevola coming to the club?

Get down from your high horse, Richmond Excited. I have never said that our drafted players won't be good players or that our current dept is accountable for previous mistakes. What I have said is that I don't agree with our drafting strategy to repair the mistakes of the past.

By the way your stats of 4 KPP out of 22 are crazy as they include rucks (you said 18 mids to go with them so that obviously doesn't include rucks). Now no ruckman can ruck all day, every game, so we need 2 per 22 as every team in the AFL has. That leaves us with 2 KPP for FFWD, CHF, CHB,FB and this is assuming that we have no injuries as we have no KPP on the bench. Now my question to you - Are you a strategy adviser for the RFC?

Bluejay...calling the club "dumb" and implying that there was a lack of a recruiting strategy casts a long dark shadow upon those players who have recently come into the club..........unecessarily IMO!

You may be innocent of blaming the current footy dept for past mistakes....others are not!  Look at "claws" post re miller and the 2002 draft....gm was at the club for 2 minutes yet apparently is still fully accountable for what transpired.

Oh yeah bluejay....just for you i updated my previous post to allow for 2 mobile ruckman....but i think i'll take the risk at not playing an insurance kpp on the bench!

And just to get this thread back on track....quality, quality, quality is the name of the game.....i want the club to recruit champions. The 64K question is what does it take to make a champion....this is the key.  I can tell you that there is a very bright mind at the ANU (and internationally renowned scholar to boot) who has researched this question and come up with the following answer....its all in the MIND.  Its not just about kicking action, footy smarts etc. its about will-power, desire, determination, strength of MIND and ability to overcome adversity.

From what i have heard.....Clarke (and good luck to the boy!).....all the skill and potential in the world but he does not come close to what is really required!

 

[the claw]

The current football dept is not/and should not be accountable for the mistakes of previous regimes.......this non-sensical argument is just plain pathetic!  Just because the current recruiting strategy does not align with those of the ubiquitous armchair expert it does not mean that there is no strategy/plan.

We have all discussed this before.....many believe that the modern game only has space for 4 quality kpp from a side of 22 (18 mids with flexibility to play back or forward).  Work out the ratios and the recruiting philosophy should become apparent.

Oh...and at least allow the new recruit to play a game before you launch your critique. 

One final thing......are all those people foaming at the mouth because of the non-selection of Clarke at 8 due to perceived attitude problems the same ones who baulked at the prospect of Fevola coming to the club?

Get down from your high horse, Richmond Excited. I have never said that our drafted players won't be good players or that our current dept is accountable for previous mistakes. What I have said is that I don't agree with our drafting strategy to repair the mistakes of the past.

By the way your stats of 4 KPP out of 22 are crazy as they include rucks (you said 18 mids to go with them so that obviously doesn't include rucks). Now no ruckman can ruck all day, every game, so we need 2 per 22 as every team in the AFL has. That leaves us with 2 KPP for FFWD, CHF, CHB,FB and this is assuming that we have no injuries as we have no KPP on the bench. Now my question to you - Are you a strategy adviser for the RFC?

Bluejay...calling the club "dumb" and implying that there was a lack of a recruiting strategy casts a long dark shadow upon those players who have recently come into the club..........unecessarily IMO!

You may be innocent of blaming the current footy dept for past mistakes....others are not!  Look at "claws" post re miller and the 2002 draft....gm was at the club for 2 minutes yet apparently is still fully accountable for what transpired.

Oh yeah bluejay....just for you i updated my previous post to allow for 2 mobile ruckman....but i think i'll take the risk at not playing an insurance kpp on the bench!

And just to get this thread back on track....quality, quality, quality is the name of the game.....i want the club to recruit champions. The 64K question is what does it take to make a champion....this is the key.  I can tell you that there is a very bright mind at the ANU (and internationally renowned scholar to boot) who has researched this question and come up with the following answer....its all in the MIND.  Its not just about kicking action, footy smarts etc. its about will-power, desire, determination, strength of MIND and ability to overcome adversity.

From what i have heard.....Clarke (and good luck to the boy!).....all the skill and potential in the world but he does not come close to what is really required!

it really is like banging your head against a wall with some i wonder why i bother.

 

[blx]

i wonder why i bother.

good, dont!

 

[Dyer'ere]

I was thinking a footy smarter Ottens type.

That's funny, Robert. I thought you hadn't seen much of Clarke. Judging from your comparison you may have seen enough. ;D

Clarke has looked very quick and agile at ground level. Has only dogged a couple (his trademark at the Carnival). Peaheart Ottens might be a good comparison. MC's NAB games have reminded me more of Justin Longmuir. Lurker.

Don't panic. You may all yet be grateful that he doesn't train with any of our players, much less take the field in the yellow and black.

 

[the claw]

I was thinking a footy smarter Ottens type.

That's funny, Robert. I thought you hadn't seen much of Clarke. Judging from your comparison you may have seen enough.  ;D

Clarke has looked very quick and agile at ground level. Has only dogged a couple (his trademark at the Carnival). Peaheart Ottens might be a good comparison. MC's NAB games have reminded me more of Justin Longmuir. Lurker.

Don't panic. You may all yet be grateful that he doesn't train with any of our players, much less take the field in the yellow and black.

lurker its a good word and may well describe clarke. its certainly apt for longmuir. but i think clarkes problem is hes been lazy and spoilt. ive seen clarke back into packs and take hits when the mood takes him.this is most certainly unlike longmuir.

 

[pahoffm]

If Clark had done anything in the U18 carnival that resembled his first couple of games for Brisbane, I'm sure everyone would have rated him higher.

He had 2 performances in the U18 carnival that you could term good. They were no where near the same level as his first 2 runouts for Brissie.

 

[TigerMasochist]

I was thinking a footy smarter Ottens type.

That's funny, Robert. I thought you hadn't seen much of Clarke. Judging from your comparison you may have seen enough.  ;D

Clarke has looked very quick and agile at ground level. Has only dogged a couple (his trademark at the Carnival). Peaheart Ottens might be a good comparison. MC's NAB games have reminded me more of Justin Longmuir. Lurker.

Don't panic. You may all yet be grateful that he doesn't train with any of our players, much less take the field in the yellow and black.

lurker its a good word and may well describe clarke. its certainly apt for longmuir. but i think clarkes problem is hes been lazy and spoilt. ive seen clarke back into packs and take hits when the mood takes him.this is most certainly unlike longmuir.

Could be that Junior footy hasn't been enough of a challenge, working with and contesting against elite senior footballers has forced him to re assess and take up the bigger challenge.
He is still a kid with a long way to go so as with our players it's unfair to put any kind of judgement on them till until he has had genuine time to grow into this level of footy. In the meantime just watch them develop with interest.

 

[cagedtiger]

Who is Mitchell Clark?

 

[Ian4]

my brother is a lions supporter and he told me to watch out for this guy before the NAB cup started. now i know why. he can play alright...