Every time I watch Paul Chapman and Barry Hall play I think of Elliot and Parkin's no rebuilding philosophy.



You're right TBB. Saying that we would have picked up Chappie and Hall in the draft is one of the more ridiculous footy forum arguments. Of course, if those saying this can come up with a 100% correct phantom draft for 2010, I'll withdraw that statement.

But the most ridiculous argument by far is that we should have went into rebuilding mode at the end of 1999. We'd just played off in a GF FFS. We had a top class core group (with more than a few of them heading into the twilight stage of their careers) but we were still short a few players, especially down back. In those circumstances, you go for the doctor, you top up - any other football club in the world would have done the same thing. No good recruiting some young snots, waiting 3-4 years for them to develop while the careers of Ratts, Braddles, SOS, McKay, Brown, etc wind down. Name a premiership side over the last 10 or so years that didn't top up to improve its list.

Now some people probably don't realize this but when we top up it doesn't mean we can pick any player we want - we have to grab those who suit our needs from a fairly limited pool. O'Reilly and Mansfield were still serviceable footballers when we picked them up. Didn't work out the way we hoped altho we did have a very good 2000/01.

At the end of 2001 we still had a very well-performed side despite the lack of a tall marking target up forward and we had good reasons to expect similar form in 2002. So we addressed our shortcomings by recruiting McKernan for another tilt at the flag. That we finished last had nothing to do with the McK trade. He had a very good year after a horror start. The people bitching in hindsight about getting McK are probably the same people bitching about Carlton not picking up a key forward at the end of last season.

As for the "never re-building" approach, I would not expect anything less from my club (altho I would probably not agree with Elliot's methods). If I was president of the club and the coach presented a 5-year plan that included "Year Three: Bottom out" I'd sack him on the spot. The club should be planning - through astute trading, drafting and player development - to stay in the hunt for the premiership. Finishing last or near last are rarely planned for - they just happen for a multiple of reasons. Ask Adelaide.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, would be interesting to see what we were all thinking coming into 2002. I am sure none of us thought a wooden spoon was on the horizon. I remember thinking myself that if Fev could come on and McKernan worked out we could hold ground, perhaps go top 4.

By the beginning of 2002, I thought we would struggle to make the 8. Then we started terribly, got a respite with the win over Collingwood, lost to Port, then in a tough game against North we copped injuries and narrowly lost, which basically ended the team then and there. Kind of like Melbourne in 2007, it started off with some problems (lack of form of some players, no Kouta) then snowballed (more injuries, continued lack of form, loss of confidence, playing guys who weren't ready, no ruckman etc).

Like Melbourne in 2007, no one really saw it coming as extreme as it did.

Disrespectful to Parko and and would be disrespectful to any poster's views. Mods please remove this post.