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.

Excellent thread topic GVGjr.

Fantasia is largely derided by Adelaide supporters for being a poor recruiter, and I personally struggle to come up with anything of value he has brought to the table at the Dogs other than to lighten Rocket's non-core footy load (which to be fair was out of control in 2007, so someone was needed to fill this role).

Upgrading Mulligan and giving a fringe player like DJ a 3 year deal rank among the more ridiculous decisions that Fantasia has signed off on - 3 years!! I don't think DJ has even played 3 games in the last 3 years.

He certainly didn't handle the Lake contract negotiations particularly well either to be honest. Clayton's expert contract negotiation skills have been missed as sorely as his eye for talent, perhaps even more so.

When it was Rocket and Clayton together, I had supreme confidence during trade week that we won't get reamed (we never did) and that we will keep everyone we want to - I don't feel anywhere near as confident with Fantasia and Dalrymple behind the wheel alongside Rocket.

I would Imagine that the coach would surely get together with the recruiters and contract makers in some form to discuss worth of a player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GVGjr

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.

---

And Dalrymple as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sedat

Excellent thread topic GVGjr.

Fantasia is largely derided by Adelaide supporters for being a poor recruiter, and I personally struggle to come up with anything of value he has brought to the table at the Dogs other than to lighten Rocket's non-core footy load (which to be fair was out of control in 2007, so someone was needed to fill this role).

Upgrading Mulligan and giving a fringe player like DJ a 3 year deal rank among the more ridiculous decisions that Fantasia has signed off on - 3 years!! I don't think DJ has even played 3 games in the last 3 years.

He certainly didn't handle the Lake contract negotiations particularly well either to be honest. Clayton's expert contract negotiation skills have been missed as sorely as his eye for talent, perhaps even more so.

When it was Rocket and Clayton together, I had supreme confidence during trade week that we won't get reamed (we never did) and that we will keep everyone we want to - I don't feel anywhere near as confident with Fantasia and Dalrymple behind the wheel alongside Rocket.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chef

And Dalrymple as well?

---

He would report to Fantasia and yet we have been caught out with some trades. Now I can accept a miss or two by the new boy but recruiting was Fantasia's main claim to fame and we have made at least one too many errors.
In this instance I'm more interested in why the Footy Operations Manager isn't copping the same heat in the media and by our supporters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sedat

Upgrading Mulligan and giving a fringe player like DJ a 3 year deal rank among the more ridiculous decisions that Fantasia has signed off on - 3 years!! I don't think DJ has even played 3 games in the last 3 years.

He certainly didn't handle the Lake contract negotiations particularly well either to be honest. Clayton's expert contract negotiation skills have been missed as sorely as his eye for talent, perhaps even more so.

When it was Rocket and Clayton together, I had supreme confidence during trade week that we won't get reamed (we never did) and that we will keep everyone we want to - I don't feel anywhere near as confident with Fantasia and Dalrymple behind the wheel alongside Rocket.

---

He upgraded or signed off on Mulligan when we clearly had the opportunity to just give him another season as a rookie.
We upgraded Hooper too early from my perspective. 3 year to DJ is an unnecessary risk and really our list management isn't great. As you say, the Eade and Clayton partnership was a good one although my views have been that we never cut into the list deep enough before Clayton's departure.

Rocket might be part of the problem with some player retention etc but in my opinion if Rocket doesn't get another contract Fantasia's position should be untenable as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GVGjr

He would report to Fantasia and yet we have been caught out with some trades. Now I can accept a miss or two by the new boy but recruiting was Fantasia's main claim to fame and we have made at least one too many errors.
In this instance I'm more interested in why the Footy Operations Manager isn't copping the same heat in the media and by our supporters.

---

That's fair enough and understandable.

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.

Like we've discussed in other threads, there's been some strange list decisions in the past 2 years and Eade wasn't the final decision maker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GVGjr

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.

---

In my opinion, the whole football department, management, coaches and leadership are at fault for Sundays performance. So Fantasia should be a big part of a review.

So what does he actually do?

The list is fine, the application has been inconsistent. I read last week we had won more quarters than anyone, and just been smashed in lapses. Eade hasn't got the players following instructions. The list is not that different to last year, its underachieving this season.

I'm not calling for Eade's head, but he and the players have a job ahead of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GVGjr

He would report to Fantasia and yet we have been caught out with some trades. Now I can accept a miss or two by the new boy but recruiting was Fantasia's main claim to fame and we have made at least one too many errors.
In this instance I'm more interested in why the Footy Operations Manager isn't copping the same heat in the media and by our supporters.

---

I have considerable support for the main thrust of this thread and I would expect a thorough review of the Football Department to occur at season's end, but I don't think that recruiting is responsible for recent performances.

It might not help in seasons to come, but for now we need to look closer to the coal face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maddog37

So what does he actually do?

---

I was thinking the same thing. Is he responsible for hiring the assistants or does he leave that to Rocket? Does he have the final say at the MC meetings?

I know for a fact that in recruitment, Rocket doesn't have a lot to do with it. He will indicate the type of players he feels he needs, and the recruiters will come back with a list. Rocket may go through a few tapes and give his input and opinion but has to rely on the recruiters assessment on the player. But things like list management, salary cap contract negotiation is down to Fantasia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysadog

I have considerable support for the main thrust of this thread and I would expect a thorough review of the Football Department to occur at season's end, but I don't think that recruiting is responsible for recent performances.

It might not help in seasons to come, but for now we need to look closer to the coal face.

---

Neither do I. From my perspective, Eade's boss has been under performing and I believe the example of two trades periods where Dalrymple didn't quite nail the agreements is a direct reflection on Fantasia's management. Surely someone who comes from a recruiting background like Fantasia did hasn't lost the art of dotting the i's on trades.

He's been getting an easy passage as far as I am concerned.

Lets hope any review of the footy department is independent to Fantasia's position.

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......

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:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remi Moses

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:eek:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chef

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sockeye Salmon

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sockeye Salmon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sockeye Salmon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chef

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chef

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.

^^ totally Agree with this ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GVGjr

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lantern

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lantern

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greystache

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remi Moses

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

---

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.

I believe GWS were looking at him so I don't know whether we would look at trading him for a pick in the next year or two

Fantasia! is it his real name?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghost Dog

Fantasia! is it his real name?

---

Yes, the origin comes from Venice Italy from the Fantuzzi Family , just some useless trivia I picked up roundabout

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sedat

Excellent thread topic GVGjr.

Fantasia is largely derided by Adelaide supporters for being a poor recruiter, and I personally struggle to come up with anything of value he has brought to the table at the Dogs other than to lighten Rocket's non-core footy load (which to be fair was out of control in 2007, so someone was needed to fill this role).

Upgrading Mulligan and giving a fringe player like DJ a 3 year deal rank among the more ridiculous decisions that Fantasia has signed off on - 3 years!! I don't think DJ has even played 3 games in the last 3 years.

He certainly didn't handle the Lake contract negotiations particularly well either to be honest. Clayton's expert contract negotiation skills have been missed as sorely as his eye for talent, perhaps even more so.

When it was Rocket and Clayton together, I had supreme confidence during trade week that we won't get reamed (we never did) and that we will keep everyone we want to - I don't feel anywhere near as confident with Fantasia and Dalrymple behind the wheel alongside Rocket.

---

http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/po..._James_246.jpg

Agreed
Where are we at with DJ? if he doesn't play soon, reflects poorly on this choice of player.
As it says in the OP, up to fans to learn about how the club works, not just lump it on the coach, identify who the weak links are in our club and hold them to account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghost Dog

http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/po..._James_246.jpg

Agreed
Where are we at with DJ? if he doesn't play soon, reflects poorly on this choice of player.
As it says in the OP, up to fans to learn about how the club works, not just lump it on the coach, identify who the weak links are in our club and hold them to account.

---

Isn't it funny how things turn around? After the 2007 season it was highlighted Eade was doing "too much" from a media perspective and from an overall football operations perspective.
When we got back on track in 2008, 2009 and 2010 Im sure majority commented how well Fantasia has performed and helped Eade out.

As earlier said we as a club have made a few interesting trade choices and contract offers.
If I recall correctly Scott Clayton helped with contracts and did all trading by himself (with assistance from Eade).
Clayton and Wells (geelong) are the two clear standouts when it comes to all things recruiting and trading.

My point being it was always going to be very hard to replace Clayton, but it doesn't excuse errors that are occurring.

Did Fantasia lead the football department review at the end of 2010?

I am not familiar with his role in the nuts and bolts sense so he escapes my criticism. Should the role be more prominent in fans thinking around the team?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMahatma

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.

---

The Howard choice is even more curious given that players selected after him (Pittard and Tapscott) who play the same role were both more proven performers at u/18 level, and have proven thus far to be better at AFL level.

Clayton picked his share of smokies, but this, so far, just seems as if Fantasia and Dal overthought their first draft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Happy Days

The Howard choice is even more curious given that players selected after him (Pittard and Tapscott) who play the same role were both more proven performers at u/18 level, and have proven thus far to be better at AFL level.

Clayton picked his share of smokies, but this, so far, just seems as if Fantasia and Dal overthought their first draft.

---

I doubt Fantasia has any say in drafting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SonofScray

I am not familiar with his role in the nuts and bolts sense so he escapes my criticism. Should the role be more prominent in fans thinking around the team?

---

I guess my belief is that if Eade is coming under fire it has to be a reflection on Fantasia as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mofra

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.

---

Agree with this. Can anyone tell me why as a collective our group is such a poor kicking side now? This has to be a priority at the draft table, Hawthorn showed us up big time Sunday.