I still disagree with undertones that we had a decent list to play with.
You can't argue with the stats that were were bottom 2 in every category (skill level, height, strength) and now we are probably leaders in those categories. If Wallace had taken over, I have no doubt we wouldn't anywhere near the position we are now.
Its easy to look back now and say that we had the core team, but its still very obtuse to do that, because it just shows the lack of understanding of how hard it is restructure and develop a list.
I wonder how many of the same people would say they rated those players back then, Bateman, Osborne, Ladson, Campbell, etc. Very few, in fact I'm sure a lot of those players would have been ridiculed by many on here. I know many were ridiculed by Hawthorn supporters too, so I have no doubt opposition supporters would of had less faith.
Wallace annoys me the most in this regard. He quoted that Hawthorn had the better list for the short term, and Richmond the long term. He has then changed his tune, and tried to point out that many players were on the list at the time Clarkson took over.
That annoys me for a few reasons. One, is that he didn't identify this at the time, and it was obvious to anyone (including him) how bad our list was looking then. He then downplays the work Clarkson has done by trying to make out we had a list to play with. Coaches like Craig often said he couldn't believe how well Clarkson was doing to get 5 wins in his first season given the state of our list, it was that bad. I don't buy this we had a core to work around, and it was that simple. Clarkson managed to identify some players he could work with, but it was as simple as there just being talent on the list. I wont agree with anyone who says that, because it just isn't true. Hodge and Mitchell were there, but so is Kerr and Cox at West Coast. It takes much more than two gun players.
Secondly, it downplays the work in getting the best from the players Clarkson identified as having a future. I would question whether Guerra, Osborne, Ladson, Young, Campbell, Taylor, Sewell, Gilham etc. would have come on the same way under Wallace and his development programs. In fact I'm sure none of them would be where they are today in terms of their output at AFL level, I honestly believe that.
You can't argue with the stats that were were bottom 2 in every category (skill level, height, strength) and now we are probably leaders in those categories. If Wallace had taken over, I have no doubt we wouldn't anywhere near the position we are now.
Its easy to look back now and say that we had the core team, but its still very obtuse to do that, because it just shows the lack of understanding of how hard it is restructure and develop a list.
I wonder how many of the same people would say they rated those players back then, Bateman, Osborne, Ladson, Campbell, etc. Very few, in fact I'm sure a lot of those players would have been ridiculed by many on here. I know many were ridiculed by Hawthorn supporters too, so I have no doubt opposition supporters would of had less faith.
Wallace annoys me the most in this regard. He quoted that Hawthorn had the better list for the short term, and Richmond the long term. He has then changed his tune, and tried to point out that many players were on the list at the time Clarkson took over.
That annoys me for a few reasons. One, is that he didn't identify this at the time, and it was obvious to anyone (including him) how bad our list was looking then. He then downplays the work Clarkson has done by trying to make out we had a list to play with. Coaches like Craig often said he couldn't believe how well Clarkson was doing to get 5 wins in his first season given the state of our list, it was that bad. I don't buy this we had a core to work around, and it was that simple. Clarkson managed to identify some players he could work with, but it was as simple as there just being talent on the list. I wont agree with anyone who says that, because it just isn't true. Hodge and Mitchell were there, but so is Kerr and Cox at West Coast. It takes much more than two gun players.
Secondly, it downplays the work in getting the best from the players Clarkson identified as having a future. I would question whether Guerra, Osborne, Ladson, Young, Campbell, Taylor, Sewell, Gilham etc. would have come on the same way under Wallace and his development programs. In fact I'm sure none of them would be where they are today in terms of their output at AFL level, I honestly believe that.
