-
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
Premiership Team 2017
B.Ellis, pick 15 - 2011
A. Rance, pick 18 - 2007
D. Grimes, pick 2 pre season - 2009
B.Houli, pick 3 pre season - 2010 (Essendumb)
D.Astbury, pick 35 - 2009
N. Vlastuin, pick 9 - 2012
K.McIntosh, pick 31 - 2012
T. Cotchin, pick 2 - 2007
J. Townsend, Trade from GWS pick 70 - 2015
K.Lambert, pick 46 rookie - 2015
D. Martin, pick 3 - 2009
J Caddy, Trade from Geeelong pick 24 & 64 - 2016
D.Butler, pick 67 - 2014
J. Riewoldt, pick 13 - 2006
D.Rioli, pick 15 - 2015
T.Nankervis, Trade from Sydney, pick 46 - 2016
D.Prestia, Trade From Suns, pick 6 - 2016 & pick 19 2017
S.Grigg, Trade from Carltoon for A.Collins - 2010
S.Edwards, pick 26 - 2006
J.Graham, pick 53 - 2016
N.Broad, pick 67 - 2015
J.Castagna, pick 29 rookie draft - 2016
B.Ellis, pick 15 - 2011
A. Rance, pick 18 - 2007
D. Grimes, pick 2 pre season - 2009
B.Houli, pick 3 pre season - 2010 (Essendumb)
D.Astbury, pick 35 - 2009
N. Vlastuin, pick 9 - 2012
K.McIntosh, pick 31 - 2012
T. Cotchin, pick 2 - 2007
J. Townsend, Trade from GWS pick 70 - 2015
K.Lambert, pick 46 rookie - 2015
D. Martin, pick 3 - 2009
J Caddy, Trade from Geeelong pick 24 & 64 - 2016
D.Butler, pick 67 - 2014
J. Riewoldt, pick 13 - 2006
D.Rioli, pick 15 - 2015
T.Nankervis, Trade from Sydney, pick 46 - 2016
D.Prestia, Trade From Suns, pick 6 - 2016 & pick 19 2017
S.Grigg, Trade from Carltoon for A.Collins - 2010
S.Edwards, pick 26 - 2006
J.Graham, pick 53 - 2016
N.Broad, pick 67 - 2015
J.Castagna, pick 29 rookie draft - 2016
If you read my posts on this all I have said is that 2017 is a bad example for the point you are making.
Of course learning from mistakes is important if you want to get better. Nothing I have said suggests otherwise.
Yes great strategy and bad execution. To only nail one pick was a distaster
Over the 2018 preseason we lost Griffiths and added Balta, CCJ and Miller. Plus Soldo was rucking.
So our 2018 VFL had 5 talls who have since played regular AFL football, plus another 3 young talls who would not.
Added to the were Jack, Lynch, Rance, Astbury, Grimes, Broad and Nank.
i reckon most clubs would have been pretty jealous of our list of talls at that point.
Higgins was not a miss - neither was balta - ccj was
2 of 3 is a good hit rate. Don’t forget the rule changes that buggerd us up contribute to this conversion.
2 of 3 is a good hit rate. Don’t forget the rule changes that buggerd us up contribute to this conversion.
All we needed to do was to draft Allen instead of Higgins and Sam Taylor instead of CCJ and we would have nailed it.
Drafting Higgins was a huge misstep. Didn’t need his type.
Not sure of the point . You could say that about almost any premiership side
The Higgins selection. Frank had just been demoted. And the Turk Clarke ascended to the boss job. And put his stamp on this pick.
Frank was not averse to a small forward and liked the marking kind. Daniel Rioli was his type. And so was Ben Ainsworth. Daniel Rioli is lightning and Ainsworth is real quick.
It's not that Frank never took a non athlete forward. Jack Einstein Riewoldt was slow skinny and short. But he could jump. And his IQ was and still is historic.
Higgins was slow, short, couldn't jump, kick or handball. No plan for the ball but the big white sticks. He is strong at getting a shot. But can't kick. Or handball.
Clarke's regime rated his goal genius above his immeasurable shortcomings. And there was no successful extant type.
Who is or was the great small forward with all of those shortcomings?
*But Jack Higgins is a successful player.* He is. In a very potato like way. *We'd have him now at Fitzroy.* Yeah. That's because we're Fitzroy.
So. Matthew Clarke destroyed his first choice in an ND. Many do. *He didn't destroy it. He got a potato.* Have a look at all the Pavliches that came after this Fiora. And Clarke strategically traded up to get the Fiora. Ahead of a half dozen Pavliches. He destroyed the pick.
One pick didn't make or break any drafting manager. Clarke bungled one. Nobody can or will hang him for that. He went with his eye and his eye let him down. How did his eye go after that?
Frank was not averse to a small forward and liked the marking kind. Daniel Rioli was his type. And so was Ben Ainsworth. Daniel Rioli is lightning and Ainsworth is real quick.
It's not that Frank never took a non athlete forward. Jack Einstein Riewoldt was slow skinny and short. But he could jump. And his IQ was and still is historic.
Higgins was slow, short, couldn't jump, kick or handball. No plan for the ball but the big white sticks. He is strong at getting a shot. But can't kick. Or handball.
Clarke's regime rated his goal genius above his immeasurable shortcomings. And there was no successful extant type.
Who is or was the great small forward with all of those shortcomings?
*But Jack Higgins is a successful player.* He is. In a very potato like way. *We'd have him now at Fitzroy.* Yeah. That's because we're Fitzroy.
So. Matthew Clarke destroyed his first choice in an ND. Many do. *He didn't destroy it. He got a potato.* Have a look at all the Pavliches that came after this Fiora. And Clarke strategically traded up to get the Fiora. Ahead of a half dozen Pavliches. He destroyed the pick.
One pick didn't make or break any drafting manager. Clarke bungled one. Nobody can or will hang him for that. He went with his eye and his eye let him down. How did his eye go after that?
Been saying it for 20 years, cherry picking hindsight examples is pointless. Look at any clubs drafting in any year and you'll find some ammo if you're into it.
All clubs draft duds, and mostly duds, its a fact. Its expected and normal. People pay lip service to that fact but don't seem to be able to actually recognise it. Look at any draft by any club on footy wire and its there for all to see, a conga line of no-name anonymous broken dreams.
We haven't had a good draft hand, its a fact, the AFL equalisation policies are real not imagined, again people pay lip service but don't seem to be able to actually recognise it
I've had a stab at some actual systematic analysis in the past, did it years ago with Frank and more recently with Clarke, based on defined assessment criteria and strike rate over time, it was quick and dirty, but at least it was something. It showed Frank was above average, as is Clarke.
How far above average? Hard to say, lot of variables as we all know. Is he far enough above average? I do not know, its a good debate to have, but he is not a total incompetent because, with the benefit of hindsight, he drafted Brown over Van Rooyen.
Maybe Clarke isn't good enough? But any actual assessment would be based on reaching certain benchmarks, not just 'cos he went Conca over Heppell or whatever.
I'd love to see some real susbstantial analysis, been saying that for 20 years too, its doable but would take a while, and I'd love to see an assessment of all clubs recruiting, and a ladder of draft performance. I've never seen one. I'd love to see some analysis of the difference between the best and worst, I don't think it would be that much, but that is just the vibe for me and I'd love to see some data analysis.
For me, FWIW, a peruse of drafts Footywire 2017-21 indicates Footscray are very good, better than us, their dud rate seems low. But I'd say we are better and more active at trading. Really shows how the 2 go hand in hand, you need both, but one effects the other, trade some good players it costs in draft hand. We are better than Geelong, which is an interesting comparison because we've both been at the top for a long time. Port are a mixed bag, everyone is obviously, but nailing all 3 of their 2018 top 10 and 20 picks set 'em up. Thats just a few observations based on looking at the draft history, the numbers, draft hand, hits and misses, and comparing them..
All clubs draft duds, and mostly duds, its a fact. Its expected and normal. People pay lip service to that fact but don't seem to be able to actually recognise it. Look at any draft by any club on footy wire and its there for all to see, a conga line of no-name anonymous broken dreams.
We haven't had a good draft hand, its a fact, the AFL equalisation policies are real not imagined, again people pay lip service but don't seem to be able to actually recognise it
I've had a stab at some actual systematic analysis in the past, did it years ago with Frank and more recently with Clarke, based on defined assessment criteria and strike rate over time, it was quick and dirty, but at least it was something. It showed Frank was above average, as is Clarke.
How far above average? Hard to say, lot of variables as we all know. Is he far enough above average? I do not know, its a good debate to have, but he is not a total incompetent because, with the benefit of hindsight, he drafted Brown over Van Rooyen.
Maybe Clarke isn't good enough? But any actual assessment would be based on reaching certain benchmarks, not just 'cos he went Conca over Heppell or whatever.
I'd love to see some real susbstantial analysis, been saying that for 20 years too, its doable but would take a while, and I'd love to see an assessment of all clubs recruiting, and a ladder of draft performance. I've never seen one. I'd love to see some analysis of the difference between the best and worst, I don't think it would be that much, but that is just the vibe for me and I'd love to see some data analysis.
For me, FWIW, a peruse of drafts Footywire 2017-21 indicates Footscray are very good, better than us, their dud rate seems low. But I'd say we are better and more active at trading. Really shows how the 2 go hand in hand, you need both, but one effects the other, trade some good players it costs in draft hand. We are better than Geelong, which is an interesting comparison because we've both been at the top for a long time. Port are a mixed bag, everyone is obviously, but nailing all 3 of their 2018 top 10 and 20 picks set 'em up. Thats just a few observations based on looking at the draft history, the numbers, draft hand, hits and misses, and comparing them..
Last edited:
I did some analysis a long time ago, when folks were saying Frank was a dud and we should delist him. I rated it on how many 100, 200, All Australian and Brownlow winners had been drafted.
It showed he was average at the time (would read different now of course), but typically folks wanted to take the weight of numbers and argue minutiae.
Eg that player shouldn't have played 100 games, they're a dud. Gifted games cause we're crap. Only given games because they're a high draft pick. Etc etc.
I'm inclined to go down the rabbit hole again.
So, before I do.
Can the experts here tell me how they'd measure a good player. To do it, there needs to be some sort if evidence that's traceable/research able.
For example: Saying "they need to be a good kick" won't meet that criteria .
Maybe I'll start another thread to get ideas before I go looking.
It showed he was average at the time (would read different now of course), but typically folks wanted to take the weight of numbers and argue minutiae.
Eg that player shouldn't have played 100 games, they're a dud. Gifted games cause we're crap. Only given games because they're a high draft pick. Etc etc.
I'm inclined to go down the rabbit hole again.
So, before I do.
Can the experts here tell me how they'd measure a good player. To do it, there needs to be some sort if evidence that's traceable/research able.
For example: Saying "they need to be a good kick" won't meet that criteria .
Maybe I'll start another thread to get ideas before I go looking.
yeah mine was similar. Had a red (bust)/ amber (jury out, traded)/ green (hit) rating for picks based on the expected success rate for that pick. Showed he outperformed the expected norm, what we/ I do not know is what the range is, how much better than the norm is good, and how good? How much better than the norm means he is very good V just a bit better than OK? For example if the expected success rate for pick 15 is 30% (I forget what it is) if Clarke is going at 40%, is that solid, or great? My analysis showed he is above average, but how far? My impression is hes just above average picks 8 to 30, better than that 30 onwards.
Last edited:
% of games played out of possible games that could be played. Not many duds play 200+ games.
Yes, I know players get injured etc but it’s still probably the least biased metric you can get. Otherwise you have to go into Supercoach points territory and no one wants to go there. It also means you can assess draft picks from their first season in the system.
It's a bit more complicated when assessing recruiters, they need to be assessed in totality when dissecting the team as a whole. I personally judge recruiters on their ability to nail talls first and foremost, then it will come down to their midfield selections and finally, the spare parts players and flankers. Jackson got the hard parts early in the piece, Riewoldt was his first pick in AFL footy, at pick 13 it wasn't a given either, plenty of busts either side of that selection. He nailed Rance and fended off the Scott Selwood fan club, another critical decision. Astbury was another fantastic pick but it's worth noting he endured a few busts in Elton, McBean and Griffiths. That's not a criticism either, it's more a feather in the cap given the strike rate with these types is below 50%, you need to run the gauntlet to come up trumps and busts are par for the course.
In comparison Clarke nailed Balta which was a very good pick but also overlooked Allan & Taylor for a tweener ruck, that's a poor choice in anyone's language. He then repeated the butchery by picking Brown over a key forward and a well rounded mid in 2021. Expecting we'd be addressing these oversights in 2022 we then traded out of a draft flush with talls and grabbed two more flankers. For list building purposes it's been messy and lacking focus. Collier-Dawkins was a boom/bust pick and I think the antithesis of Jackson's conservative approach with top 20 selections. It's definitely possible to build a tank, Cripps was a plodder at junior level too, but this was bottom 10% for aerobic capacity, Cripps was bottom 40%, that's significant. Dow another who looks borderline and a bit of a reach.
Time is running out for Clarke, he needs to get cracking because the pipeline is clogged with flankers and half glass empty midfielders. Massive task ahead and I'd say a few careers dangling by a thread.
