-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Matthew Clarke
- Thread starter Harry
- Start date
Other than Higgins, most of Clarkes selections meet an athletic freak profile and an uncompromised attack at the ball.
Be career defining for him what he yields from this draft
Very exciting
Be career defining for him what he yields from this draft
Very exciting
Yep, Clarke may not be picking the best player available at every pick (who does btw?) but he was clearly picking what he thought was the best Richmond type player available.
The problem is the rule changes have undermined the Richmond brand of football. Players we’ve drafted over the last few years to fill specific roles will find themselves having to change significantly. Some might be capable but most probably won’t. This doesn’t necessarily mean Clarke’s recruiting was bad, in fact it makes the last few years nearly impossible to judge objectively.
SO @TigerFurious has Clarke been drafting best available talent at say our first two picks every year or has he gone best available that suits the Richmond style?
While we're winning premierships and therefore getting later draft choices it makes strategic sense to choose players who slip due to immaturity. Because we have time.
Typically talls and rucks take longer to develop and so it is likely that they will provide the greatest opportunity for improved value.
And we've seen in the Clarke period many talls and rucks drafted. We've seen the focus. And as we saw from the outset of this period we've been very busy in drafting youth ahead of topping up with experienced players.
We've thrown everything we have at the National Draft. So far. Strategically. And wisely IMO.
All of this is immaculate percentage play.
The challenge then is to pick the right youth.
Typically talls and rucks take longer to develop and so it is likely that they will provide the greatest opportunity for improved value.
And we've seen in the Clarke period many talls and rucks drafted. We've seen the focus. And as we saw from the outset of this period we've been very busy in drafting youth ahead of topping up with experienced players.
We've thrown everything we have at the National Draft. So far. Strategically. And wisely IMO.
All of this is immaculate percentage play.
The challenge then is to pick the right youth.
To get a feel for the 2017 ND we should have a look at the first sixteen. The lads who went before our pick.
We can all agree that it was not a good draft for early picks. Naughton is the standout #1 at this stage. (Talls go earlier.) And then Brayshaw, Cerra. Or maybe Bailey. And I'm sure Rainer has fans.
We targeted picks in the 20s and got them. (More of that later.)
It's an interesting 16 before we get a pick.
(Source wikipedia)
We can all agree that it was not a good draft for early picks. Naughton is the standout #1 at this stage. (Talls go earlier.) And then Brayshaw, Cerra. Or maybe Bailey. And I'm sure Rainer has fans.
We targeted picks in the 20s and got them. (More of that later.)
It's an interesting 16 before we get a pick.
(Source wikipedia)
The next seventeen is a rich vein. We had three picks here.
It's fair to say that Noah Balta is a player who fits in at the top end of this range IMO. I am not a big Higgo fan. He's ok. But yeah nah from me. If you rate Higgo we'll have very different takes on the RFC draft performance here. But Noah is widely esteemed albeit much on potential at this stage.
Oscar Allen, Tim Kelly, Sam Taylor, Tom De Koning, Bayley Fritsch and Liam Ryan are the others who might be considered cream. Seven of these sixteen players are AFL players good to go. And Higgo, who I consider a bust. But we did get a partial refund. (Thanks, Blair.)
That vein. Three picks. As at July 2021 I don't think we mined well here. To nail just one of the other stars would've have set us up beautifully.
But maybe you have a different take on that list.
How does RFC's performance look ATM if you don't have a very high opinion of Noah Balta?
Last edited:
I love the call out Dyer'ere, but the issue I have with the speculative re-look at a draft, assumes everyone else picks the same. For example, let's say we pick Allen instead of Higgins. West Coast might have responded by taking Balta. There goes our KPB from some premiership matches. We end up taking Daniels with our last pick.
I agree Higgins was always going to struggle with us, especially given the lack of pace. I just don't know we'd be better off now in the long run.
Seems in summary Matt has done very well with later picks and Rookie picks and if he’s been involved in all of them, mature age pick ups from other clubs.
But his first round/earlier picks are a bit underwhelming to date, it seems. Still a bit of time on a few.
But his first round/earlier picks are a bit underwhelming to date, it seems. Still a bit of time on a few.
Excellent analysis Jack.
Higgins was an odd choice, given the players we had at the time for his position.
Clarke said best available player. Maybe on exposed form he was. But we didn’t need his type.
One of Allen or Taylor plus Balta would have set us up for the next 10 years.
Let’s hope we convert our Higgins compensation into the next Alex Rance/Mathew Richardson.
Or poach Sam Taylor.
Higgins was an odd choice, given the players we had at the time for his position.
Clarke said best available player. Maybe on exposed form he was. But we didn’t need his type.
One of Allen or Taylor plus Balta would have set us up for the next 10 years.
Let’s hope we convert our Higgins compensation into the next Alex Rance/Mathew Richardson.
Or poach Sam Taylor.
Have to take into account in regards to Allen/Taylor.
Wern't we into Lynchs ear by then?
Also a certain CHB hadn't shown any hint of retiring earlier than expected.
Wern't we into Lynchs ear by then?
Also a certain CHB hadn't shown any hint of retiring earlier than expected.
Your balanced, nuanced assessment of the situation at the time has no place here. Under no circumstances are you to take into account the wider state of the list. Any future posts assessing recruiting should be much more narrow and made with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
Talls drafted since we started our flag run: Balta, CJ, Miller, Biggie, Ryan. Chol re-rookied once or twice in this time as well. Not bad. But we could still do with a future FF and CHB.
Miller still can't get a game and almost every time you watch him you see why. But he's on the list for at least eight more weeks. We should probably have a look.
Biggie has the makings of an intercept defender. More gym required but a keeper for now.
CJ and Ryan have similar profiles. CJ easily ahead but has three more years in a professional environment. He was also an All-Australian junior and state captain, whereas Ryan was overlooked for two years. CJ gets the ball more and is a stronger mark; Ryan is 206cm (CJ 200) and a better athlete and kick. Ryan has a contract for next year - neither CJ nor Chol does. Everyone expects at least one of CJ or Chol to be elsewhere next year - we can't afford for it to be both.
So, what do we do? Given the reported interest in both CJ and Chol, I doubt both will stick around. We can't play them all and I'd say Nankdo is still our #1 ruck combo option. We might not have a choice in this. Chol can go wherever he wants as a free agent and CJ might have big money offers from more than one club. Either would probably stay if they were confident of getting a game, but how can they be?
We desperately need to recruit our next-gen midfield. Having six picks in the first three rounds, with possibly a top-10, another first-rounder and potentially two more picks around the 25 mark is great currency. Let's base it on the current ladder and say we have 10, 14, 26, 28, 41, 46.
There's been talk of trying to get the Dogs' first by trading them our two seconds to give them extra points for a Darcy bid. But he's going to get bid on in the first five, so they'll need their first then some to match. We could instead offer say 28 and 41 for their first next year. If a Darcy bid comes at #1 we could throw in 46 as well. I like this play, not sure the Dogs would, but we're blue-skying here so I'm gonna go with it.
So now we have 10, 14, 26, 46 and the Dog's 2022 first.
Cerra. If we get him he'll come in as a 22-year-old able to immediately improve our midfield. Freo will ask for both our firsts and Blair will rightly laugh and point out that it only cost one first to get the far superior Dion Prestia and we got a significant second-round upgrade into the bargain. So, they'll want our first pick, we'll want to give them our second. Horse-trading will happen. If we want him, we'll get him, is my feel. I think we want him. And he wants us, because he's as big a Tiger fan as us PREnders.
If we have pick 10 maybe we give it for Cerra and that's that. If we have pick 7, who knows. You'd have to know the kids better than I do. Let's say we give up pick 10.
So, what to do with those talls? GC have pick 5 currently and have said it's on the table for an experienced key forward - could we nab it for CJ? We'd probably have to sweeten the deal unless he comes back and kicks arse in which case we'd want to keep him. I just don't know if he works in the same forward line as Lynch, and I'm not sure he'll ever be a #1 forward or a #1 ruck. McEvoy ceiling IMO.
Let's say we get pick 5 because we're being optimistic here. So we lose CJ, gain Cerra, and go to the draft with 5, 14, 26. Best mid with 5, maybe a key forward at 14, and either another mid or a key back at 26.
And we have two first-rounders in 2022.
How we lookin?
Agree. Every sport I've ever been involved with has had the mantra of 'get the best early, pick for needs later'. Don't know why Clarke has been instructed to do otherwise, but reckon he has.
*note - my typing is just trash today...
