I think Blake Caracella stepped in for that one, between pots.
-
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
Most people on here don’t really understand that Clarke doesn’t make picks on just what he prefers. The list management is in Blair’s hands and he directs Clarke on what type of player he is looking for. Most recently our picks have been based on selecting “next in line” players. For example Banks is next in line for Kamdyn’s position. Brown is next in line for Vlastuin’s position etc. However when it comes to the selection table if our preferred player is unavailable they go to best available. Brown was picked as he was a Vlastuin replacement which was needed before Van Rooyen who still hasnt proved himself better than Brown by the way. Brown has some outstanding attributes which we are of course yet to see at AFL level.
So, how do you measure it then?
The point is to define an objective measure of draft performance that can then be applied to all clubs and the results compared.
still too much cherry picking, hindsight and personal judgement. I agree with a fair bit of it, but thats not the point for me.
For me the recruiters job is to draft good players. Criticising type of player rather than talent of player, is fair enough for a fan discussion, but not for an objective assessment. It conflates issues and muddies the water.
I reckon you could do a multi-tiered approach, step 1 is drafting of 100 or 200 gamers, an objective measure which a few have had a stab at in a half-baked way, to sort the wheat from the chaff, then drill down into that by checking for individual awards and achievements of those players to sort for quality. For example, Dudoro and Frank might be equal tier 1, but Frank superior tier 2.
sorry mate
Anyone that thinks that JVR has not proved himself better than Brown has not been watching closely
Can't cop that sorry
This is true but Clarke also needs to be vocal about the strengths of a particular draft, I don't blame him entirely for the current predicament but somewhere along the line there needs to be some head knocking. When Miller dangled pick 8 for Polak, Jackson went troppo as it put Jack potentially out of reach, the fact Collingwood went for Reid & the Dogs opted for Everitt was more dumb luck than great trading, I do believe someone's car copped a battering after that deal was finalised. Last year Clarke should have insisted on at least one pick in the 2nd round, that could have been used on a tall, quite a few on the board to choose from. Instead we've loaded up on more flankers. Players like Brown can be sourced anywhere from the second round to the rookie draft and this is the most salient point, supply and demand dictates you need to address the rarer parts first and then look to free agency or the state leagues for the next Houli. And for the record I was in the Johnson camp for the Brown pick, I'm really struggling to see how Brown was deemed a better prospect, baffling to say the least.
People calling Jack Higgins a bust is madness, objectively; 99 games in good sides and 120 goals, rising star, BFYP with us, goal of the year. Non-objectively, can't kick over a jam jar, slow and snubbed us.
Thats not a bust, Matthew Ling, thats a bust.
Thats not a bust, Matthew Ling, thats a bust.
I think more to the fact we didn't need his type of player at the time, feels like we wasted that pick due to that.
Not sure how you score it, but performance relative to draft pick.
A pick 1 who is successful isn't a massive win, but clearly better than getting one who doesn't perform.
Pick 15-20 who becomes a 250 gamer is how you stay at the top of the ladder for longer.
With that said the law of numbers means there are only a fixed number of AFL games available per season. This maths means if you pick the best 40 available players of the draft in 6 consecutive drafts (and delist everyone else) then you are only getting 23 of them advancing their games total and some are getting squandered in the twos. There is some trade credit you can get but games by itself feels almost a zero sum game to me and potentially good players recruited into strong teams stay in the twos whereas weaker players in weaker teams get spots and games - I'm sure we could see plenty in the NM and WCE teams at moment and the Rich 2012 team (say a Nason type).
You need some precise way to measure quality of the picks, and then measure relative to how well other recruiters do for the 'same' draft hand to compare. AFL coaches votes aren't too bad a way for the pointy end of the stick - but still favor midfielders. Just feels a super imprecise science so this thread will still be going in 2077 bemoaning our 2076 and 2075 selections (assuming the world hasn't ended).
A pick 1 who is successful isn't a massive win, but clearly better than getting one who doesn't perform.
Pick 15-20 who becomes a 250 gamer is how you stay at the top of the ladder for longer.
With that said the law of numbers means there are only a fixed number of AFL games available per season. This maths means if you pick the best 40 available players of the draft in 6 consecutive drafts (and delist everyone else) then you are only getting 23 of them advancing their games total and some are getting squandered in the twos. There is some trade credit you can get but games by itself feels almost a zero sum game to me and potentially good players recruited into strong teams stay in the twos whereas weaker players in weaker teams get spots and games - I'm sure we could see plenty in the NM and WCE teams at moment and the Rich 2012 team (say a Nason type).
You need some precise way to measure quality of the picks, and then measure relative to how well other recruiters do for the 'same' draft hand to compare. AFL coaches votes aren't too bad a way for the pointy end of the stick - but still favor midfielders. Just feels a super imprecise science so this thread will still be going in 2077 bemoaning our 2076 and 2075 selections (assuming the world hasn't ended).
Brown may well turn out to be better than JVR. He has traits that suggest he could be a 200 game player.
Thats my point, I understand why it 'feels-like' that, hence the can't kick, slow snubbed comment, but 'feels like' is not an objective measure. Its hard enough to draft players who are not duds, let alone draft players who are good AND exactly what you need at the time.
A lot of people have a tin ear when it comes to objective assessment, and will continue on their hindsight cherry picking ways, which is fine, whatever turns you on. It can make for fun discussion at times, we all do it at times, I have.
But even on the basis of cherry-picking, selective memory, and what have you (Clarkey) done for me lately? only as good as your last pick -based assessments, I give you Matt Coulthard!. All the Clarke baggers seem to forget his most recent feat of smokey mastery!
Last edited:
Every recruiter has their strengths and weaknesses, Clarke has a good record with small forwards, arguably better than Jackson, this area isn't one of concern. As far as midfielders are concerned, I think it's fair to say he's yet to stamp himself as a visionary, tall forwards another area of concern. Granted, he hasn't had the same hand as Jackson, this needs to be taken into account but five picks in the top 30 is plenty to work with, he's also been the beneficiary of Hartley's fixing, both Higgins & CCJ didn't hurt in so much as they commanded decent compensation. I won't write him off completely but there needs to be a concerted effort to fix the spine and then add some polished midfielders to the mix. The next couple of years will be telling, this year less so given our draft hand but next year is make or break.
That's strange I'm sure we could do with him/or his type now. He' be pretty handy imo
Good post, very thought provoking. Agree, recruiters would be like players, player X good overhead but one paced, recruiter x great at picking forwards with late picks but pedestrian in the first round etc etc. I'd like to see some analysis on that too.
Like Andrew Raines and Reece/Rhys Palmer? There's Rising Stars and Rising Stars. The RS noms usually goes to a mid who gets a lot of the ball. Not to defenders, KPP (odd exceptions), etc.
Someone might kick 4 one week, get a nomination, then do zero for the rest of the year. Or, the kids might sit waiting in the ressies because the first are playing finals and winning regularly (eg like us).
The other thing to consider is that in Jackson's day, drafting anyone with talent would fill a list need and they'd likely be given games in the right position at Seniors or Ressies.
When you have Lynch, Jack, Miller, Chol, it doesn't make sense to draft another KPF if you think they're not going to play the ideal role in the reserves. Then there's no development opportunity.
CCJ I think was chosen as a long term ruck/KPF not KPF/Ruck selection. Develop behind Soldo and Nank.
"No Flags" is a decent player for sure. But he is also a bit of a squib and has questionable footy / iq.
