I see that as a problem. I think it limits our outlook when we see recruitment as fulfilling a set of basic requirements. Other clubs are always going to find a way of having a better midfield, better forward-line, etc, than yours no matter how attentive you think you have been in a certain area.

I don't know how to precisely put it but people on this forum almost invariably see recruiting as a way of 'correcting' weaknesses. I think it a potentially debilitating way to treat a list. To put it in practical terms, if we were to recruit Cloke, let's at least give him some time to see just how he impacts on our side before we decide if we can effectively ignore the drafting of any tall forwards.

If we get Cloke, I look forward to the lamenting on TC in 5 years time when he is on his way out and Mitchell has just won his second Coleman medal for the Western Bulldogs or something like that lol

We really do have some good stocks up forward and down back coming through. Why not build them up? We just won a game by 16 goals with something like 4 first-year players. Why spend millions on Cloke only to have Casboult or Mitchell or Rowe or McCarthy go to another club because of having no spots?

According to Shane Rogers, Rowe was recruited to be the interim power-forward type for a couple of years while Casboult and Mitchell (who is earmarked as a leader in the future) develop into their prime. I like the sound of this plan as it should bring about a succession to Waite and Co 3-4 years down the track without the need to pay for Cloke.

On the other hand, I could also see how his presence may (key word there) bring about even better results over the next couple of years while some key position players are getting to that 50-100 game mark. Could be a recipe for success. Is the expense worth it though? Methinks... no.