Crows' unwillingness to fall leaves them mired in mediocrity

Personally, I share Craig's belief that teams do not have to "bottom out" to rise again. That, however, is where my agreements with Craig start and end. Given the AFL now has the draft, and two new teams, recruitment has become the key issue for all clubs. As long as players like Adam Goodes go at no.43 and James Hird at no.79 then clubs can survive, and thrive, without ending up at the bottom of the ladder. The prerequisite, however, is having a football department and a recruiting team who know what the hell they are doing. It is a curious thing with modern, professional sport. Many of the off-field people seem more intent on personal ambition and their football careers than the good of the club. They are professional administrators rather than devout "club men". This week Collingwood, next week Hawthorn. In the "old days", all clubs had guys involved who were real football people, real club men and who always put the club first. Legendary stories of wierd and wonderful recruiting coups abounded, triggered no doubt by wise old heads seeing some young gun and ringing the club to say, "Come and have a look at this fellow". Today, it is an industry. All the young guys are paraded through the Under 18s, professional recruiters pick and choose and get things right - or horribly wrong. Why is it so? While it may be impossible to predict the future of a Hird or a Goodes surely the selection can get better. In the old days it was all about football ability and attitude. Then it was all about athleticism and aerobic capacity. Who has a big "engine". Sometimes it's just about "gut feel". Every Adelaide supporter still asks what could possibly have occurred to make the club pick Ken McGregor over Matthew Pavlich. Both played for the same Adelaide club and when the Crows went to watch McGregor they would have also seen Pavlich. Yet it was McGregor who excited them. To be fair Kenny played 150 AFL games, a fair career. At no stage did he threaten to tear a team apart in any of those games. Pavlich is still playing, captains his club, has won B&Fs and is generally regarded as one of the great players of the modern era. He came from a football family - his father played for the same SANFL club. He had pedigree. What he did not have was anything which appealed to the Crows. Sure, there was a shoulder injury as a young man but equally, surely, there was the obvious talent, attitude and ambition - not to mention the sheer size and speed. Sometimes I wonder why the Crows recruit anybody at all. It seems that every new player spends at least two years in the SANFL, presumably learning what footy is all about. Surely, if they're good enough they're old enough! Surely? Phil Davis was a revelation when he finally got into the team. Some in Adelaide might argue that it took him that long to get "ready". Others, like me, might argue that he was always good enough but that Adelaide, for some reason known only to them, had a system in place which prevents the promotion of talent until it is simply too late - or absolutely necessary. No doubt, if Bock had not left Adelaide then Davis would still be running around for North Adelaide. The Crows like to think they have "structures" and plans. Some less charitable have called Adelaide the "Crowbots" for their predictable, colour-the-numbers approach to footy. Craig, no doubt, likes to think of the team as well-drilled, disciplined. Others, like me, may conclude that they lack inspiration and an instinct for the game. How many times must we supporters endure yet another agonisingly slow build-up to get the ball forward. When it finally arrives, if it arrives, each and every forward is under the pump because the opposition have had time to prepare, have lunch, a nice bottle of red and a nap while waiting for the footy to turn up. The Adelaide plan requires, demands, precision with the footy. Every Crow seems to be under instructions to give the ball to another Crow. Laudable in itself, it pre-supposes the "other" Crow will actually turn up to receive the cherry. It also assumes the first Crow is skillful enough to actually deliver said ball in the expected manner. What if it all goes pear-shaped? When the receiver fails to turn up, the ball carrier simply holds the ball until overwhelmed by the opposition. The ball is turned over and panic ensues. If the delivery misses, as it usually does, the receiver is overwhelmed by the opposition, the ball is turned over and panic ensues. Some things never change. All of Adelaide's so-called elite players simply refuse to hit targets to make life easier. The game plan insists on it, the players are incapable of it. Scott Thompson gets the footy more than most and burns it more than most. Not much value there. Likewise Johncock, whose kicking style is so primative that it defies logic that he frequently is given responsibility for bringing the ball back into play following a minor score to the opposition. Patrick Dangerfield is seen as an inspirational player yet he rarely gets more than a dozen touches of the footy per game. Why so? No side seems to kick backwards as often as Adelaide. Perhaps it is because those receivers I spoke of earlier are not ready to receive. If not, why not? Instead of waiting for the receiver to run to space why doesn't the kicker simply kick to space and force the issue. Keeping the ball just confuses everybody as to the final intention. Geelong get the ball and they go, Collingwood get the ball and they go, Adelaide get the ball - and that's when our troubles begin. Call it game plan, call it coaching, call it "Crowbotics". What you cannot call it is instinctive. The Adelaide style does not appeal to the Steve Johnson's of this world. Or the Gary Abletts, or the Chris Judds, or the Adam Goodes'. Some guys need instruction, no doubt. Others just need to be let loose. Did Andrew McLeod need to be told what to do? Did Darren Jarman? Yes, there's obviously a need for even the great players to understand what the rest are trying to do but those great players see opportunity where the ordinary player sees trouble. You just let those guys play and work around it. You do not insist that they handball to someone. Turnovers, of course, kill teams quicker than a gun. Your team is in position, running to space, the target is missed and now each and every team member is out of position in relation to their opponent and the footy. All because some incompetent missed his target. People today are quick to point out the game is more skillful than ever. How so? Targets are missed more frequently than a cow provides milk, goals are still missed with mind-boggling regularity. We are deceived by the fact that some guys kick goals out of their bum. "Miracle" we all cry, what skill. It does not explain how sitters are missed from straight in front. Or why a player chooses to run the ball along the ground when the simple thing to do is kick it in the air. Straighter and quicker than along the ground where an odd shaped ball could do anything and go anywhere. Players today are certainly more two-sided than ever before but it doesn't help much if you cannot execute your bread and butter skill correctly. On your natural kicking foot, hit the target. The game is more intense than ever before, tackling more fierce and expectations have never been higher. It still does not explain how that Essendon player missed David Hille a couple of seasons ago. The Bomber was metres clear and kicking under no immediate pressure. Hille was forty metres in the clear. He is a big target yet the Bomber stuck it way above his head causing Hille to reach as high as he could, one-handed, and come down on a stiff leg and do his knee. Out for a year. So much for incresed skill levels. It raises a question. How many players today get injured, many seriously, for no other reason than their teammate could not hit a target? Especially today with that increased tackling intensity. Ball too high or too short and the receiver gets smashed when he should get an easy touch - with an option to go back and take the kick. Often today his only options are walk off or stretcher? No doubt Neil Craig puts that stuff down to bad luck. Modern footy. The Crows seem to get a lot of injuries. Would they have as many if they could kick and handball properly? Or if they could make good decisions when they have the ball? If they gave it off immediately instead of wasting time trying to find the best option? Or if they simply kicked it themselves instead of trying to give it to someone in no better position - and by the time they get it, often a worse position. Make no mistake, Neil Craig may be excited by the young talent in his team but the Crows are in trouble. No team burns match winning leads like the Crows. No team stops quicker than the Crows. No team gets absolutely smashed quite like the Crows (I'm thinking the Melbourne game, the Freo game, the last 25 minutes against Collingwood). I'm not even bothering to explain the Port Adelaide or Brisbane games. Losses can be accepted if the team has given it a real crack. It's the way they lose that galls the Crows fans - and delights the Port fans. Whether it is mediocrity in terms of talent, or game plan, remains to be seen. At the moment, though, the coach is looking down the barrell. Clubs traditionally don't sack twenty players - they do sack one coach. The next few months are not only a test of the team and the coach but also the administration. Steven Trigg has so far given Craig a Gold Pass to continue. It remains to be seen if even Trigg will be moved to action if the current level of performance continues.

Bottoming out isn't really a good formula for success. Hasn't worked for Richmond or Melbourne. The Cats current crop of players were drafted without falling below 10th on the ladder (from memory). The only club i can think of that has pulled that off is Hawthorn with their GF theft in 2008??

Im not a fan of Adelaide, so this might be happening deep in the seconds, but ... I dont see any effort by Adelaide in non-traditional recruiting. I dont see Canadians, Irishmen, New Zealanders or rugby league players. Personally, I'd be bringing this bloke over- Andre Holmes http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=103751&draftyear=2011&genpos=WR He is six foot four, currently about ninety five kilos, he has a 35 inch vertical leap, and he can catch the ball if you can throw it to him. Oh, and he's undrafted and therefore unemployed. And he's slow for his position, running forty yards in four and a half seconds (ten yards in one point six). Bring him over and see if he can take a mark. Then see if he can learn how to kick. I can probably find you thirty kids like him.

Based on their performance yesterday you'd think it'll be a long season for the Crows. They may bottom out whether they want to or not. Still, they're a young team and they will always struggle for consistency at the moment.