Actually Indie, I doubt they were so prescient as to anticipate DMAc doing his knee. Acland is no better than DMac and certainly doesn't seem to have his best clubman attributes. You're right we did need a ruckman who could hold the fort while the youngsters developed. That is not Cain Acland. The problem is not that we recruited a ruckman but that we recruited a dud. DMac and Cloke would have been beter options. And withy them both being injured we would have been left with no ruckman. Which is where we are now. Except we are paying a non ruckman lots of dough.

But McLaren had a back injury which stuffed up his preseason. Even without the knee injury, he was always going to struggle to make an impact in the 1st half of this year. The knee injury just means that he's unlikely to make an impact in the 2nd half of the year as well.

But we clearly needed an experienced ruckman in addition to McLaren anyway. Cloke would have been an iffy proposition, and that view has been confirmed in hindsight.

A comment that others have used elsewhere is "no guts, no glory". We had to do something. Ackland was perhaps the only person who we could recruit, especially given the age criterion. If we'd done nothing and we now had no one in the ruck, the howls of outrage would have been far more intense. Especially if we threw one of the young guys in only to see him go down with injury.

Yes, we're continually punting on overrated short arse ruckmen because we went through 4 national drafts without taking an 18 year old ruckman.
Great long term planning and list management hey?

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

We should have had the foresight of Sydney - that way we could have taken youngsters in the draft and trained them up like they did.

But when it comes down to it, the criticism really only boils down to one which relates to the 2004 draft.

The 2002 Draft
In 2002, we did well to thwart the AFL's penalties by trading away pick 19 for Barnaby. He was good value, especially considering that in a sense it was a fictional pick. Will Minson was available at pick 20, but again it must be remembered that if we didn't trade that pick we would have lost it. There was no way that we could have drafted Minson.
not
Looking back on the selections in the AFL draft of 2002, there weren't any ruckmen taken after our 1st pick at 45, other than arguably Cam Wight from the Bulldogs who's more of a CHB now. And to get him, we would have needed to pass up Simmo. I'm glad we didn't.

The rookie draft in 2002 was a desert for ruckmen. In the rookie draft, we took Angwin and Hedge in the hope of securing another ruckman. The only other decent ruckman who went in that draft was Joel McDonald at pick 70. And presumably he was a zone pick for them.

So, after the 2002 draft, we had a solid if unspectacular 1st ruckman who at least was willing to put in, and we had 2 young trainees.

The 2003 Draft
The 2003 draft was pretty poor for ruckmen too. Let's assume that Walker was the best pick at 2. He was certainly better than recruiting ruckmen such as Kepler Braddley at 6 or Spaanderman at 18. The only remotely successful ruckmen taken in the draft after pick 35 (the 1st pick we could have retained if we hadn't traded it for Scotto) were Mott at 57, a 24 year old VFL ruckman named Ben Hudson at 58 and Deluca at 72. As far as I can tell, there were no promising 17 year old ruckmen taken in that draft by anyone. We took 2 older ruckmen, and the Crows took 1. Unfortunately, they picked better than we did. But at least an attempt was made.

Ruckmen were traded heavily, with Loats going to Geelong, Street going to the Bulldogs, Allan going to Essendon* and McKernan going to the Roos - and none of those have been great acquisitions in hindsight.

We signed up Setanta as an international rookie, and the only other ruckman of any note taken in the rookie draft was Rix.

So, up to that point, I don't know whether we could have been expected to pull a 17 yo ruckman out of thin air.

The 2004 Draft
We picked up JR and Harts with 9 and 25. Cameron Wood and Adam Pattison was still there when we picked up JR (but it's interesting to note that Richmond preferred Pattison to Wood???). Instead of Harts, we could have taken Ackland, Fabian Deluca. Ivan Maric or Brad Moran (who went at 33, 35, 40 and 58 ). We took Bryan at the end of the draft.

The fact is that we were crying out for pace and height at either end as well as for young ruckman. Passing up on Woods probably is bad in hindsight, but presumably WH didn't rate him for some reason. The others were debatable. Deluca and Maric aren't going gangbusters. The best of them, Moran, was a left-of-field selection given that he came from England and had only started playing AFL in the year of his selection IIRC.

We had already signed up Aisake as an international rookie, however. He might not have been a 17 yo rookie, but he was as good as. I reckon we were entitled to count him as if he were taken with a good pick in the National Draft as he'll be as good as any of those ruckmen taken in it.

We also took Batson with our first pick in the rookie draft. The only other noteworthy ruckman taken in the rookie draft was Griffen (Adel).

The 2005 Draft
In 2005, I reckon that most of us think that the selections of Murphy, Kennedy, Bower and Edwards were good selections.

We would have needed to sacrifice Kennedy to take Max Bailey. I don't know whether that would have been welcomed at the time or in hindsight. Maybe Ryder might challenge in hindsight, but more because of his ability to play CHB rather than his ability to dominate as a 197 cm ruckman.

Bailey was taken at 18, just short of our pick 20. Would we have taken Bailey over Bower? Who knows.

We could have taken:
* Trent West (198 cm - Geelong) instead of Mark Austin.
* Warnock (205 cm Freo) instead of Jake Edwards.
* Hugh Minson (202 cm Port) instead of trading pick 51 for Saddington.
* McEntee or Angus Graham instead of Jacko or Flint respectively.

Summary
So, I don't see that there can be any realistic criticism of our efforts in 2002 or 2003. In 2004, it really comes down to whether letting Wood slip was a mistake, and that depends on whether Aisake's recruitment was seen as allowing us to concentrate on other areas.

And 2005 really comes down to whether we would have recruited Minson if we hadn't traded for Saddington, and whether we rated him.

While Wood might have given us more this year, I doubt Minson would have. And it may well be that Aisake will have overtaken Wood as a No. 1 ruckman by next year.

Excellent summary Indie. While I understand why we took Ackland, he has been a major disappointment and the ruckless Saints decison to get Gardiner and Clarke rather than fight for him indicates what they thought. (Altho they've got nothing from Gardiner).

I think one issue is why French and ADL retired. I know ADL was much maligned, but I'd rather him than Ackland, and I thought Barney was a great battler and good leader. He says it wasn't injury that forced his retirement so I would wonder whether it was DP. Barney was a smart reasonable guy. It is a big decision to turn your back on another two years on $300k. Two years more and hopefully our developing rucks would have developed to the point that they were senior material. I think there is a question as to why DP couldn't/didn't convince Barney to play even one more year.

We should have realised pickings were thin and we should have known a lot about Ackland, he has been around a while. Anyway we are left ruckless now. Would have been great if we'd picked Hudson instead of Mott but at the time Hudson was a 24yr old journeyman who had been ignored in a number of drafts. I just hope we don't use up yet another spot on the list next year for a not good enough, not tall enough ruckman.

Fraser never wins a knock out for the Pies, yet they keep winning.

Therefore the moral of the story is, you really don't need a ruckman per se but rather know where the opposition is going to tap it to.

Sit on your opponent in the midfield and you whould be good for a few clearances.

_________________
“It is a state of mind, a system of belief, a way of seeing the world, a deep faith that, because you are Carlton, you belong to something great.” - Mike Fitzpatrick articulating what Out of the Blue means.

Interesting analysis Indie.

Just a few comments...we could do with a Peter Street right now. He certainly has his limitations, and he didn't look a good pick up back then, but he has come along a fair way, and is still getting better. Although the Dogs did give up pick 20 for him.

Griffen looks like he has he goods for Adelaide, was playing really well till he got injured.

While the jury is still out on Kennedy, Ryder is miles ahead at this stage, although not sure he will end up a ruckman.

And finally, I like the look of Warnock. When he developes, Fre will have Sandilands (211cm) and Warnock (205cm) dominating the ruck...look out.

_________________
Mens sana in corpore sano.

Bring back the laurel wreath logo!!!

I was pushing Warnock's barrow 3 years ago on CSC......agile and a good mark .....good below his knees etc........no one was interested.....especially the CFC.

Fair enough Warby.

But would you have taken him ahead of JK, Bower or Edwards? Because if not, then it doesn't really count, does it?

It's a bit like Leuenberger. I was a bit of a wrap for him. But I don't know know whether I actually would have passed on Gibbs to get him. And he wasn't availlable by our 2nd pick.

We also have to try to avoid using superior hindsight and instead try to remember what they all looked like at the time they were on offer.

An added problem with hindsight is that the outer circle for centre bounces wasn't introduced until 2005. It wasn't until 2005 that it became obvious that 200+cm ruckmen have a decided advantage because of the new rule.

But when we look at blokes like Street now, we look at them with our post-2005 eyes. Back in 2003 however, there was still a concern that he might be taken out of centre-bounce contests by ruckmen such as Knobel, Charman and McKernan leaping early and aggressively to the body. If only we'd known back then of the impending change. But we were out of the running anyway as the best we had to offer during the trade period was Scotto's pick 35, and we weren't allowed to trade into the draft to pick up better picks.

Indie nice synopsis. However I disagree on your views re Pattison. He will develop into an excellent player for the Tigers and I'd love to have him at CFC (possibly better than Woods )

So basically what you are saying Indie in a world of 6 billion people in the last 5 years there were no 18 year old suitable enough to be trained as a ruckman

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws

Your reading comprehension needs a bit of work, SB. Read through my post again, and maybe once more. Hope to hear from you after you've done that

It appears some of our esteemed colleagues have the same development thoughts as Pagan.
Its easier to make excuses and take the soft option rather than do the hard yards and develop players.

Fabian DeLuca is behind probably the best rucking duo in the AFL in Brogan and Lade, yet he still managed 2 games last year and according to the club website "would have played more late in the season had he not injured himself"
I'd think that if we had a 19 year old ruckman who played 3 games for us last year, we'd be pretty happy.

As for Maric, he played 8 games last year for a club that led the competition for most of the year. When he was'nt playing AFL, he was the number 1 ruckman for Port Adelaide in the SANFL. Not a bad effort for a 19 year old kid?

Cameron Wood. He's played 5 games this year including a couple of beauties. He debuted as an 18 year old and is showing a heap of promise for a player who recently turned 20. He was also the NAB rising star nominee in Round 2 this year.

Warnock has played 4 games 4 Freo this year and Hugh Minson, a 19 year old developing ruckman who was a junior state high jump representative was overlooked in favor of Jason Saddington.

So you see it doesnt come down to Wood. (As much as he's quality)
The fact is we took Russell and Hartlett in preference to Wood, Maric or DeLuca. Hartlett was top aged when drafted compared to Wood and Maric who are the best part of a year behind yet they've all shown more to date.
Now, I'm a fan of Harts but the fact is we needed a ruckman which many of us identified at the time.

The facts show we've overlooked plenty of ruckman who are going to be quality AFL players.
So no, it doesnt basically come down to one draft, it comes down to 4 years of pathetic list management.
No amount of excuses can change the fact.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

No Indie I read through all your waffle and in your eyes we only missed out on Wood or Minson - Once again clouding over the real issues with gloss and nobody could have done better .

You conviently forgot the fact when your messiah took over we had two very capable ruckmen and he was in the perfect position to put time into developing a young ruckman in the draft. But instead he chose to piss them off so they left and he was left with drafting Mott and Angwin as replacements . but hey we cant have a side full of renegades can we .

now lets wait for the next 400 word essay off Indie explaining how he had no choice in the matter and the decision was the right one

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws

The honest answer why Barnaby left is that he could not go another year with DP.

_________________
Leaders do not care what other people say about them. When people start talking crap about you, thats when you know you've made it

Great response BV, I agree entirely. Given our list, we should have at least taken a punt with a lateish pick on an emerging ruckman, especially given our situation.

Now we are in a strange position where we probably have Cloke, McLaren and Ackland on our list as established bodied ruckman and Aisake, Hampson and Jacobs as inexperienced/developing ruckman. We'll probably can McLaren this year, but with 5 on our list, do we take another young kid?

If we do we'll have an unbalanced list, and we'll find it very hard to give them all ground time in the reserves (or Bullants and Bullants reserves) and hence risk stifling their development.

It probably means we can't take another ruckman until we give Ackland the flick at the end of '08 or '09.

Yeah what were we thinking - we recruited Ackland as our number 1 ruckman, yet we actually preferred to play someone in front of him who has played less than 30 games and never played ruck in his life. All credit to Setanta doing a great job in the circumstances.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

There seems to be a bit of common ground, though, BV. Seems you don't suggest that the drafts of 2002 and 2003 constituted lost opportunities.

As I suggested, the real controversy surrounded the 2004 draft, and to a lesser extent the 2005 draft.

Certainly, the delays in seeing returns from JR, Harts and Saddo make it much harder to say in hindsight that they were better choices.

Harts' injuries have been numerous, but then again they weren't unpredictable given his junior history.

Saddington's medical all-clear was obviously a mistake, though his seemingly complete recovery now shows that it was not unfair to accept the medical advice. But we did recruit Aisake in that year, and he's as bright a prospect as any of the others.

Both Harts and Saddo were seen as possible answers to our dearth of key-position players. Perhaps it is easy to forget now how dramatic those deficiencies were because we've started to develop options. I'd say there was just as much urgency regarding fixing them as the ruck problem. It just so happens that the loss of 3 ruckmen at the end of last year now expose the ruck problem much more starkly.

Yes, we could have taken a young ruck in 2004 or 2005. But there were competing choices. In hindsight, I'm sure WH wishes he could have another go at those choices.

Have a look at BV's post, SB, and try to engage in a decent debate as he has.

Typical of you to try to dumb down the debate so that it's just a slanging match. It doesn't appear that you're capable of much more.

Its only dumbed down because I figured that anyone who could still idolise Pagan after his last five years must be pretty dumb .

why is it dumbed down because I suggested that Allan and Mckernan may have been better that Mott and French hell they might have been able to shoulder the load until someone was able to develop maybe Angwin a
group of senior players around might have help straighten him out much along the lines of Fev when he was 19 or 20

Or maybe Beaumont and Manton could have taken the heat off Livo, Norman and Thornton and allowed them more time to develop

Franchinna , Hulme and Murphy could have allowed Sporn and wiggens more time . But hell like I said we cant have renegades playing in the team that question the coaches methods but do you think after five years there could have been something in the message they were trying to get accross. Geez I don't know because as you said I only dumb down the debate .

Indie don't come the I'm an intellectual crap because anyone who thinks than Pagan has done a terrific job and no one could have done better is showing no signs of intelligence at all

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws