These days it's more of a poisoned chalice that has a long history of in-fighting, so people probably need to be coaxed into applying.

I'm mostly with you though: dump Fried, Gleeson and Clarke for starters.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

I don't disagree with what either of you are saying, my main point is that it isn't as simple as just replacing the whole board because by that logic all 8 are equally useless and are all to blame for the failings over the past 10-15 years, which isn't true. As you say, Rexy, at a minimum Sayers and Jenkins deserve more credit than that.

_________________
@cecil_anderson

Well, to be honest fault lies with apathetic members who, at the end of the day, tolerate the state of affairs by not actively exercising the rights re spilling the board.

That would help no one

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

Nope, you have missed the original point by your tangent for picks between pick 30-60 which you then contradicted by saying "how rapidly talent ID has been evolving". How will good players be left if that is the case?

I am saying how do we get say 4 picks inside 30 to use on both talls and mids. We already have an additional 3rd round pick from the dogs, one more of those should do for more speculative players. But the first two rounds of the draft are where its at. So someone like a Tuohy being traded (don't dislike, coaches love him, just think he has currency) probably helps us keep building the list.

As for 20 talls on the list... like I said we have one who we can ink in barring injury.
As for 5-year window... that doesn't really work for talls does it? (Weitering aside... freak)

And now you're operating under the assumption that talent ID doesn't help identify more talent...

A 5-year window is fine for this kind of discussion.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

You will have to explain both of those. Where is more talent coming from that can be selected in that pick range?
Who are these tall players selected in the last five years that are going to make it in that range of picks.

No, I was implying that no-one on the board in the last 14 years has been held accountable, whether they are still there or not. But really 10 or 14 years, does it make a difference to my major points of accountability and change? You're just nit-picking the fine details.

So let's start with everyone who has been on the board more than five years should go and reduce the total to five members. That would be a sensible start. But its not going to happen due to the entrenched self-interest of those who have.....been on the board for more than five years.

Honestly anyone who has been on the board for more than five years should resign in shame at their performance anyway.

Improved talent ID at the club level helps you better determine who suits what you're trying to achieve, and sort that out amongst the various wants and needs of other clubs as you try and secure your preferences. It also means you find more talent deeper in the draft due to your analysis and scouting reach.

Improved talent ID at the junior level means the prospects that do come through are better prepared for the game and the club environment.



That aside, in the 30-60 range in the last 5 years, here's some highlights in terms of talls:

2011 - Kersten, Michael Talia, Rowe, Paine, Downie
2012 - Close, McBean, Mason Wood, Tanner Smith, Currie
2013 - Nankervis, Alex Pearce, Giles (talented, but injury prone), Jake Kolodjasnij, Barrass, Ben Brown, Aliir Aliir
2014 - Tom Lamb, Mitch McGovern, Pittonet, Oscar McDonald, Dougal Howard
2015 - Marcus Adams, Mitch King, Skinner, Mitch Brown, Ryan Gardiner, Sam Collins, Hulett, Jordan Dawson

I've tried to avoid just picking any 190+ player there, and I've also avoided academy and F/S selections.

And remember, there's more than a few talented talls (particularly rucks) who have been selected after that point.

What you can see there is that if we want a defender or a ruck, 30-60 isn't a draft range to fear.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

Think we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think the talent for talls is great in that range, you seem to think the players you listed are better than journeyman. One player there I would put on our list. 1 player out of 10 talls selected from 60 picks.
2011 - Kersten, Michael Talia, Rowe, Paine, Downie
2012 - Close, McBean, Mason Wood, Tanner Smith, Currie

2011
So far, one player there. Kersten. Round 2, Pick 34. I'd be interested in how you can say Talia, Paine, Downie are doing the business. Not getting games five years in. Rowe is because we have such a lack of talls... Which is why I'm saying get more picks inside 30.

2012
Close is injured and only played 15 games. McBean 2 games, Tiger mates don't think he will make it. Mason Wood, too many in front of him at the Kangas to know yet. Tanner Smith 2 games. Dan Currie looks to be a journeyman.. he is 27 not 22. I don't see any of them turning into long term prospects based on what they have produced so far. That's also why I do not agree with this five year window, its still too early to tell. Based on previous years very little chance of any of them making it. Who out of these players do you think is going to be a regular for the long term?

IMO the last three years its too early to tell for any of them.

They're not exempt from judgement, an alternative needs to be put up.

Not disagreeing some board members haven't been great but to say they're exempt is factually incorrect.

_________________
"I will rejoice in their anguish, delight in their failure and revel in our success"

We are Carlton, @#$%&! the rest !!!!!!

You're a hard marker, I'd happily have Talia, Wood and Smith.

I'd also happily have Ben Brown, Oscar McDonald, Alex Pearce, Tom Lamb, Marcus Adams, Mitch Brown and Ryan Gardner.

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

Yeah, hard to argue with this really.........................

_________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit"
- Aristotle

I think it's too early on Gallicci, Gorringe and Tutt, maybe Smith, depending on what roles come up.
I like White and I think he is in favour with Bolts because he is versatile. Buckley is still young, DVR is improving every week according to Fraser so I hope he gets a shot at senior level this year. Byrne is a definite, Sheahan has the tools if he can stay on the park. We may see him before the year is out.

Notwithstanding contracts as you say, I think Lamb needs to get more of it to be a certainty. He looks OK but flashes in and out of it. Sumner should be safe.

Simmo should play on but he is a year by year prospect in his current role. One day he is going to go down and not bounce back up.

It's good we have the extra depth, even though it isn't enormous. Last year it was pretty easy to slash six or eight.

_________________
Let slip the Blues of war (with apologies to William Shakespeare) (and Sir Francis Bacon, just in case)

I think you're confusing the fact that it is possible for a board member to be replaced with them being judged against a performance standard and let go if they don't perform.

Can you name one board member who left the board in the last 10 years due to poor performance?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I have zero idea of what goes on in the Carlton boardroom, impossible to judge without any knowledge

_________________
"I will rejoice in their anguish, delight in their failure and revel in our success"

We are Carlton, @#$%&! the rest !!!!!!

So now you're not so sure if they're exempt from judgment or not?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No, you said they were exempt from judgement. That is factually incorrect, members can kick them out when it's time for reelection.

From the outside, the last 18 months compared to the previous 6 years are like chalk n cheese.

On the inside, I have NFI and neither do you!!!

_________________
"I will rejoice in their anguish, delight in their failure and revel in our success"

We are Carlton, @#$%&! the rest !!!!!!

Isn't this the list management thread?

_________________
29 different attributes,
And only 7 that you like;
20 ways to see the world,
Or 20 ways to start a fight.

When has this ever happened in the last 10 years?

Like I said, I think you're confusing the fact that it is possible for a board member to be replaced with them being judged against a performance standard and let go if they don't perform.



Logically the fact that so many board members have been on a board for 5-10 years that has been performing abysmally by any measure I can think of shows that they are exempt from any reasonable internal performance measurement.

Yes it is factually possible that they were measured and did meet or exceed all their objectives. But if that is the case it only makes a stronger case that they all should be removed.

In the end I guess it comes down to opinion. You seem to be generally happy with the board members and see no problem with the the way the board is run. I think it's corrupt and full of self-serving nepotism and that the members are exempt from any meaningful accountability.

Let's agree to disagree with our respective positions and make an end to meaningless nit-picking at details. The natives are getting restless and want to resume topic.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk