James Fantasia

[Ghost Dog]

Re: James Fantasia

Good thread and interesting reading. clearly alot of ins and outs.
Hooper decision has been a bit of a balls up hasn't it. 2 years......

[Remi Moses]

Re: James Fantasia

I for the life of me can't work out why we haven't implemented the Forward press !
Also would like to know why the players went against Eade's instructions not to handball through it. We've either got non thinking players or they're given up listening to the message.
Sidenote. How the he'll did Nathan Djkuerra get a three year contract!!
Mind boggling

[Bornadog]

Re: James Fantasia

I for the life of me can't work out why we haven't implemented the Forward press !
Also would like to know why the players went against Eade's instructions not to handball through it. We've either got non thinking players or they're given up listening to the message.
Sidenote. How the he'll did Nathan Djkuerra get a three year contract!!
Mind boggling

The first part of your post is in the wrong thread, but your second part = Fantasia's negotiating skills.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: James Fantasia

The even crazier thing is we even traded for him when we could have just picked him up for nothing.

Had we kept pick 57 I know we would have selected Schofield anyway, so no harm done.

[boydogs]

Re: James Fantasia

Had we kept pick 57 I know we would have selected Schofield anyway, so no harm done.

I thought Puopolo was above Schofield on our list, but was taken at 66 by Hawthorn before we selected Schofield at 74

[GVGjr]

Re: James Fantasia

Had we kept pick 57 I know we would have selected Schofield anyway, so no harm done.

It's not really the point. The fact is the mistake shouldn't have been made and Fantasia should have made sure it wasn't.

[chef]

Re: James Fantasia

Had we kept pick 57 I know we would have selected Schofield anyway, so no harm done.

That depends on who we would have taken with pick 74.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: James Fantasia

That depends on who we would have taken with pick 74.

Skinner

The other two we wanted were Jeremy Howe of Melbourne (pick 30-ish) and Ariel Steinberg (?) of Essendon who went about pick 40.

Puopolo was further down the list.

[Mofra]

Re: James Fantasia

And Dalrymple as well?

Dalrymple still is in the "wait and see" period, having only had two drafts; 2009 he took longer term players (jury still out, Thorne already cut but Markovic looks an inspired choice) and in 2010 he really just had scraps to work with, as he can't (and shouldn't) get credit for Wallis & Libba.

Pretty happy with the reports on Schofield and Dalhaus as a rookie though - they both showed a bit during the intra-club game at the start of the year and both could realistically debut this year.

[ratsmac]

Re: James Fantasia

^^ totally Agree with this ^^

[LostDoggy]

Re: James Fantasia

I've read a lot of criticism and frustration leveled at Eade, Smorgon and the players but nothing directed to the Football Operations Manager. How does Fantasia escape the same level of scrutiny?
No doubt he has done some good things at the club but we have bungled a couple of trades since Clayton left and now we are having a bad run so surely Fantasia should be put under the microscope as well.

Gary, you know that I've posted about being consistently frustrated with our performance during trade week, contract negotiations and drafting periods. Not necessarily with the end result with specific players (which is largely out of the hands of the front office anyway) but with the actual performance in terms of negotiations, decision making etc. -- while Clayton at GC was wheeling and dealing his way through a dozen loopholes in the last couple of years, we seemed very reactive and the focus seemed to be around one or two players (Everitt, Hill), topping up with fringe players (or trying to replace aging club legends by trading in non-performing youngsters at other clubs) or wasting time dealing with recalcitrants at Hawthorn rather than any clear, long-term strategy, sometimes ending up with the right decisions only by default or luck rather than any proactive one-upmanship on our part.

Our Howard draft, ironically the one that we HAD to get right considering the decline of the class of '99, has been dire (only Markovic, a mature-age punt taken at 70+ can be considered any kind of success at all at this point) -- long-termism is fine, but a draft also has to help address some shorter term needs, and neither our first or second picks from that are anywhere near AFL standard yet and probably won't be for another year, no matter how much we would like to hope. 4 years, nearly half a decade, is FAR too long to wait for a couple of mid-sized half-back flankers (and we are none the wiser as to whether they'll make it) -- those two picks should be already consistently contributing to the senior team, which would make a hell of a difference (imagine another Ward-type in the middle, for example, or a good little goalsneak).

In isolation, one or two puzzling decisions are just that, but when clubs only have a handful of opportunities every year to get the jump on everyone else, and a limited list from which to extract performances, one or two mistakes a year add up pretty quickly, especially in terms of depth -- our not-that-great first and second round recruiting leaves us looking a little bit like Richmond in the Wallet years, some inconsistent rookie list grunt here and there but largely class-deficient and relying on players with significant and difficult-to-rectify flaws.

--

Having said all that, we are operating on a relative shoestring -- would a larger scouting network have helped? (Ironically also, precisely because we are cash-strapped, smart recruiting or innovative off-field strategies would have gone some way to help make up the disadvantage while on the other hand, indifferent recruiting and front office performance, while obviously a symptom of not having enough resources, compounds the rich-poor gap -- maybe this was inevitable: for all the talk of equalisation, the playing field is as skewed as ever.)

[MrMahatma]

Re: James Fantasia

Gary, you know that I've posted about being consistently frustrated with our performance during trade week, contract negotiations and drafting periods. Not necessarily with the end result with specific players (which is largely out of the hands of the front office anyway) but with the actual performance in terms of negotiations, decision making etc. -- while Clayton at GC was wheeling and dealing his way through a dozen loopholes in the last couple of years, we seemed very reactive and the focus seemed to be around one or two players (Everitt, Hill), topping up with fringe players (or trying to replace aging club legends by trading in non-performing youngsters at other clubs) or wasting time dealing with recalcitrants at Hawthorn rather than any clear, long-term strategy, sometimes ending up with the right decisions only by default or luck rather than any proactive one-upmanship on our part.

Our Howard draft, ironically the one that we HAD to get right considering the decline of the class of '99, has been dire (only Markovic, a mature-age punt taken at 70+ can be considered any kind of success at all at this point) -- long-termism is fine, but a draft also has to help address some shorter term needs, and neither our first or second picks from that are anywhere near AFL standard yet and probably won't be for another year, no matter how much we would like to hope. 4 years, nearly half a decade, is FAR too long to wait for a couple of mid-sized half-back flankers (and we are none the wiser as to whether they'll make it) -- those two picks should be already consistently contributing to the senior team, which would make a hell of a difference (imagine another Ward-type in the middle, for example, or a good little goalsneak).

In isolation, one or two puzzling decisions are just that, but when clubs only have a handful of opportunities every year to get the jump on everyone else, and a limited list from which to extract performances, one or two mistakes a year add up pretty quickly, especially in terms of depth -- our not-that-great first and second round recruiting leaves us looking a little bit like Richmond in the Wallet years, some inconsistent rookie list grunt here and there but largely class-deficient and relying on players with significant and difficult-to-rectify flaws.

--

Having said all that, we are operating on a relative shoestring -- would a larger scouting network have helped? (Ironically also, precisely because we are cash-strapped, smart recruiting or innovative off-field strategies would have gone some way to help make up the disadvantage while on the other hand, indifferent recruiting and front office performance, while obviously a symptom of not having enough resources, compounds the rich-poor gap -- maybe this was inevitable: for all the talk of equalisation, the playing field is as skewed as ever.)

The Howard choice is the on Dalrymple needs to be judged on. A hail Mary many other clubs didn't have on their radar. Great if it turns out, stupid if not. Im still surprised with the hit/miss nature of first rounders, and for mine it's not the place to risk it.

I'm not confident in our drafting under Dal - and given we're trading a lot lately, maybe the rest of the footy dept aren't either...

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Re: James Fantasia

Gary, you know that I've posted about being consistently frustrated with our performance during trade week, contract negotiations and drafting periods. Not necessarily with the end result with specific players (which is largely out of the hands of the front office anyway) but with the actual performance in terms of negotiations, decision making etc. -- while Clayton at GC was wheeling and dealing his way through a dozen loopholes in the last couple of years, we seemed very reactive and the focus seemed to be around one or two players (Everitt, Hill), topping up with fringe players (or trying to replace aging club legends by trading in non-performing youngsters at other clubs) or wasting time dealing with recalcitrants at Hawthorn rather than any clear, long-term strategy, sometimes ending up with the right decisions only by default or luck rather than any proactive one-upmanship on our part.

Our Howard draft, ironically the one that we HAD to get right considering the decline of the class of '99, has been dire (only Markovic, a mature-age punt taken at 70+ can be considered any kind of success at all at this point) -- long-termism is fine, but a draft also has to help address some shorter term needs, and neither our first or second picks from that are anywhere near AFL standard yet and probably won't be for another year, no matter how much we would like to hope. 4 years, nearly half a decade, is FAR too long to wait for a couple of mid-sized half-back flankers (and we are none the wiser as to whether they'll make it) -- those two picks should be already consistently contributing to the senior team, which would make a hell of a difference (imagine another Ward-type in the middle, for example, or a good little goalsneak).

In isolation, one or two puzzling decisions are just that, but when clubs only have a handful of opportunities every year to get the jump on everyone else, and a limited list from which to extract performances, one or two mistakes a year add up pretty quickly, especially in terms of depth -- our not-that-great first and second round recruiting leaves us looking a little bit like Richmond in the Wallet years, some inconsistent rookie list grunt here and there but largely class-deficient and relying on players with significant and difficult-to-rectify flaws.

--

Having said all that, we are operating on a relative shoestring -- would a larger scouting network have helped? (Ironically also, precisely because we are cash-strapped, smart recruiting or innovative off-field strategies would have gone some way to help make up the disadvantage while on the other hand, indifferent recruiting and front office performance, while obviously a symptom of not having enough resources, compounds the rich-poor gap -- maybe this was inevitable: for all the talk of equalisation, the playing field is as skewed as ever.)

This is a very good response. Your last paragraph reference to operating on a shoestring budget is a big factor as this has been a major problem we have had going right back as I can recall, when Michael Malthouse was senior coach at the Bulldogs. In recent times we have also sought the continued support of generous supporters to finance rookies with Williamstown also now weighing in with financial support in this area. The topping up with rejects from other clubs rarely works as we have experienced this year and previously.
The bonus for us has been the father/son rule with Liberatore and Wallis and also potentially Ayce Cordy, with possibly others to come like Mark Hunter's son.

[Topdog]

Re: James Fantasia

It's a good question GVGjr, to be honest it's probably because the average supporter calling for Eade's head doesn't actually know what Fantasia's job is.

I'm not calling for Rockets head but I was never 100% certain what Fantasia does and thus he has escaped my radar

[Grantysghost]

Re: James Fantasia

Sidenote. How the he'll did Nathan Djkuerra get a three year contract!!
Mind boggling

I cant believe this either! Tells you how much notice i take 3 years seems too much for a guy who has no senior experience. Someone at the Cats must have sold him well, either that or we were so desperate for speed we paid over the odds.