2017 picks Higgins and CJ are good picks compared to Dow and Obrien. So stop complaining. It could have been worse. Got Brown in return for Higgins. People can’t say Brown is slow, fat, and can’t kick.
-
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
You did say it. Subjectively, and inaccurately. Balta was a win. The rest were errors.
If we want to be guided by the general wisdom, we might as well save Matt Clarke's salary and send Balmey in with Cal Twomey's phantom.
I'd almost guarantee it, snakey-baby.It will be interesting to revisit your '21 assessments in 2, 4 yearsMight be a couple more AAICUTBs. But I hope not!
We got Brown in return for the 2020 pick 17 we swapped to Geelong for their 2021 first-rounder. We got Clarke for Higlet. Course corrected, yes. But with 18-year-olds when we need 22-year-olds.
I'm not complaining. I'm analysing. But "at least we're not Carlton" is not the measure of success most of us are after.
Bulldust. Based on what? A gun and a decent player is a win in that draft, statistically, objectively. You have to look at drafting in macro-statistical-comparative terms, strike rates, criteria, otherwise you're just pissing into the wind.
as for the CT crack, well, conventional wisdom also says we killed it in '21. We shall see how it goes this time.
Maybe you could quantify by telling us who we should have picked in front of RCD and Dow?
Wasn’t exactly laden with superstars.
I also would like to see a body of work from our new recruits before hailing them superstars. Odds are against it.
2 metre CCJ joined as Hampson and Maric were retiring. 2 metre Chol was injured in 2017 I think. So a good idea but Voila we pick up Nank & Lynch both 200 as well. CJ couldn't get a look in. Glad he's gone.
But we don't have a decent player from that draft. We got a refund. You get a refund when you're not satisfied with your purchase.
But you're not. You're just stating we had a win because Balta and a refund.
"You have to look at drafting in macro-statistical-comparative terms"? Do you? Why? What does that even mean? That we should expect X "decent" players per draft and a gun every Y drafts and count it a win if we land in the nth percentile?
I prefer a more qualitative analysis. What qualities were you selecting for? Which players did you identify possessing them? Which players did you overlook with those traits and who did you pick without them?
I wasn't arguing we should have selected anyone in front of them. I only mentioned them as different types to our 2021 picks.
I actually asked Dimma at Club 80 whether we placed an emphasis on foot skills this last draft due to rule changes.
He said no, but they did place an emphasis on athletic ability as the game demands it more than ever.
To this end you are correct regarding a shift in priority however if the emphasis is determined by the coaching team, then how do we blame Clarke? Think you’ll find drafting players is a total club buy in, not just one man’s agenda.
But I suppose it’s a performance based industry ( wins/losses) and if it’s proven that Clarke has underperformed, they’ll replace him.
Like they would with the Head Coach regardless of his ability.
Reckon dimma deflected that question, of course we bloody did, is painfully obvious that , sonz, Brown, Banksy and juddy have sublime skills which is a quantum change
Not sure why he would lie to a coterie group in a closed room that discusses in-house information but please tell me more about what else he didn’t tell us whilst you’re guessing things
Last edited:
I reckon though that North will play their 'big fish' regardless. They will not want to be seen as having made a mistake.
Interesting times ahead for CCJ, that is for sure.
What does it mean? Very simple sir. Crunch the numbers. Work out criteria for success based on those numbers. Eg a decent player is one who plays say 50-100 games, a good player is one who plays 100-200. Draft success is based on strike rate of decent and good players in any given draft or series of drafts. It is very basic stuff. I freely admit I haven't done it, but when he had the endless draft debates pre flags, after months and months and hundreds of pages, a rough measure of success was just that. If you find 2 decent players in a draft its a par/ narrow win, if you find one star and a decent player its a win. This is how all organisations operate, measurable results and success.
There are endless variables and vagaries, but thats about it. To test it, you'd have to look at a decent sample of individual club drafts randomly. It is not hard to do, but would take time. Various posters had good stabs at it on that thread, did longitudinal assessments of the Beck and Frank years. It was good.
My assessment criteria is easily testable and replicable. It wasn't just mine, it was arrived at after discussion between a lot of people, Bully was one. I have no idea what yours is, or how you would test or compare results, the vibe?
Last edited:
We got this so wrong. Balta is a huge win but this cannot be a tick. Its a bloodbath. So many options that would‘ve given us serious depth and another 3-5 years of top four football. Turning point of the list.
This reads like the kind of nerdenomics that Chumpion Data uses to declare effective a 50-metre kick to a 1-on-3 contest.
It's a bit arbitrary to say "two decent players in a draft is a pass". Not all drafts are equal. By that measure 2001 was a pass for us (Rodan and Hyde, a"good: player and a "decent" player by your definition), when it was actually an unmitigated *smile* ing disaster.
We're not recruiting to pass some statistical formula based upon arbitrary designations of what constitutes a "decent" player. We're recruiting for one purpose: to build a premiership team.
I told you my criteria: which traits are you selecting for? did you select players with those traits? did you miss any? did you choose the right traits in the first place?
I return to my earlier comment: you can argue that Higgo is a "decent" player, you can declare him "good" when he reaches 100 games. I will forever be adamant he was the wrong player. My proof is that we traded him in while he was still under warranty.
We're asking different questions, so it's unsurprising we're getting different answers.
Every player after Higgins,except for one we took,is better than Higgins. At the time I thought he was a good pick though.
Love Will Powell. Just about my favourite non Tiger.
Of course its nerdy. Objective camparative analysis is generally pretty nerdy. Say KPI to most people and they fall asleep. And yes its a vague and tricky thing to measure, and yes you will always able to pluck out individual examples that make any assessment framework look ridiculous. But 100 games is not arbitrary. Its 100 games played at the top level, in the book. Sure theres plenty of variation in the quality of players who get there, but the vast majority will be decent players. A few will be total bums, a few will be superstars who got injured or whatever.
But none of that disproves that it can and must be measured. You have to have reference points, comparables.
A good number cruncher would be able to control for the Hyde example, a 100 gamer in a bottom side v a top side. Bring in other factors, games won, brownlow votes or whatever. This would all be happening.
But none of that disproves that it can and must be measured. You have to have reference points, comparables.
A good number cruncher would be able to control for the Hyde example, a 100 gamer in a bottom side v a top side. Bring in other factors, games won, brownlow votes or whatever. This would all be happening.
