One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on February 06, 2010, 11:39:28 PM
-
Demons rule draft
Jay Clark
Sunday Herald Sun
February 07, 2010
Rankings
1. Melbourne
2. West Coast
3. North Melbourne
4. Essendon
5. Carlton
....
8. Richmond
....
12. Collingwood
13. Bulldogs
14. St Kilda
15. Fremantle
16. Sydney
-----------------------------
IF QUALITY drafting is the key to building premiership teams, this might be the next best thing to a crystal ball.
Melbourne analytics expert Stephen Gloury has developed a formula to assess the recent draft performances of each AFL club.
While the stock response from every club on draft night is they "couldn't be happier", the reality is some do it better than others.
And as Geelong came out huge winners in the 1999-2001 draft period, Gloury's analysis of the 2004-07 era points to an impending shift at the top of the ladder.
His research suggests Melbourne, West Coast and North Melbourne, ranked No.1, 2 and 3 on his draft performance chart, have enjoyed good value for their picks as they head toward a premiership resurgence around 2012-14.
The key factor in Melbourne's high rating was a bumper '07 draft in which it was deemed to have excelled by picking midfield guns Cale Morton and Jack Grimes, plus No.53 selection Kyle Cheney and 2004 rookie Aaron Davey.
The club's recent strike rate is also high as only one (Isaac Weetra) of the 10 players the Dees selected in the '06 and '07 drafts is considered to have performed poor-below average, relative to his draft group.
A banker by trade and avid football fan, Gloury brainstormed the concept in conjunction with an AFL club, which encouraged Gloury to process it further. Previously, he assisted a VFL club in its statistics department.
"The logic behind it has been well received by the clubs so far," Gloury said.
"Certainly the clubs at the top of the report have drafted well with the picks they have received."
Conversely, the report nominates Fremantle and Sydney, ranked 15th and 16th, as the paupers in that period, due to a glut of below average youngsters.
While Sydney has enjoyed much success trading and recycling players in recent times, according to Gloury's formula, the Swans' '05 and '06 drafts were shockers. In that period, 10 of 12 players picked were rated poor-below average under Gloury's formula.
Essendon, in fourth, and Carlton, fifth, received glowing endorsements, while Richmond, a club often criticised for its drafting in the Terry Wallace years, finished mid-table in eighth.
It is worth noting maligned midfield pair Richard Tambling and Brett Deledio have statistically outperformed many of their peers of the same position type and draft group, with both earning above average value ratings.
Tambling suffers from a constant comparison with Hawthorn superstar key forward Lance Franklin, taken with the next pick in the '04 draft and was rated an elite player.
Hawthorn might have ranked higher but for its failed pick on Mitch Thorp and the injuries that have set back Max Bailey and Beau Muston.
Geelong's performance, also, was hampered somewhat by some strikeouts in the 2007 draft.
If there is a level of statistical bias, which is acknowledged in the report, it counts against the likes of St Kilda (14th), Western Bulldogs (13th) and Collingwood (12th), whose recent premiership tilts have not afforded its young players as much opportunity as teams lower on the AFL ladder.
The model is not without its quirks, as it is based on, albeit refined, Champion Data rankings points and doesn't factor in team game styles.
But as one club's recruiting chief said: "You add your own subjective assessments as well, obviously, but even by itself the research is pretty insightful, in terms of looking back on what you've picked.
"This is probably the first real report of its kind. It's the first time something like this has been done, or at least put out there and it's probably not a bad effort.
"What you've got to remember about it, though, is that it doesn't take into account trades, which are also pretty important to clubs' success."
Information from the 2008-09 drafts have not been factored into the report as the '08 draftees have played only one season and the '09 class not at all. Their development is considered too raw and their data too unreliable at this stage.
The 50-page dossier, which took more than 150 hours to develop, has been endorsed and used to help develop the list strategies at two AFL clubs.
What clubs have acknowledged is the report helps determine whether clubs have got "value" for their picks.
It sets an expectation, based on specific categorical averages of recent players' performances, for what clubs should expect from their range of draft picks.
Essentially, it provides a rough indication of whether players, depending on their position type and what number they were drafted at, have progressed and performed as well as the club would have hoped.
Pre-season and Rookie drafts have also been calculated. However, players with AFL experience who have been picked in the pre-season draft such as Nick Stevens have not been included, as they are deemed to skew the normal league average.
Likewise, mature-age players in the 2007 national draft, such as Harry Taylor, were also excluded. This was because mature-age players are usually advanced compared with their peers in their first season.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/demons-rule-draft/story-e6frf9jf-1225827457502
-
Not so interesting that a Melbourne fan has formulated this and Melbourne have the best results but are still sitting at the bottom of the ladder. I'll wait and see how they progress over the next 3-4 years i think.
It still leaves a lot to be desired as far as im concerned, leaving out Mature picks as well as trading and game style, plus the usual things that happen in life like injuries and any emotional problems that can affect any player.
Anyone with enough time on their hands can come up with a formula to make whatever team they follow look like the best.
-
hmm
04
Deledio - pick 1 could we get it wrong.very good player.
Tambling - pick 4 taken a while has only just become a decent player.
Meyer - pick 12 gone what a waste.
Pattison - pick 16 gone what a waste.
Polo - pick 20 in his 6th yr and yet to establish himself looks to be a poor pick for where it was at.
Mcguane - pick - 36 average player at best.
Limbach - pick 51 gone.
Graham - pick 67 gone.
take deledio out and its a shambles. so many early picks and so little reward.so little quality.
05
Oakley-nichols - pick 8 gone sheesh.
Hughes - pick 24 gone.
Casserly - pick 40 gone.
just 3 very decent picks all inside top 40 and not one player from them.
06
Riewoldt - pick 13 a kpp and promising.yet to establish himself.
edwards - pick 26 skinny small who may or may not get there.promising.
Connors - pick 58 has struggled so far has talent may or may not get there.
Peterson - pick 60 gonski.
Collins - pick 73 not there yet but could be the pick of them all.
simply put its still to early to say. but all entering yr 4 need to take a step forward.
07
Cotchin - pick 2 looks a very talented player you cant plan for injury.
Rance - pick 18 just his 3rd yr but his skillset is of grave concern may not make it.
Putt - pick 51 gone sheesh.
again just 3 nd picks one a monty. one 50/50 and one gone. really decent picks two top 20 i have to say fail.we got one player of quality.and this in a yr we recieved the spoon.
i have to say what ever the rating system its real kind to us.
-
That's all very good Claw. The problem is that you concntrate on richmond alone. The full study shows we did better than 8 other teams. Now with our low picks we probably should have doen better than 8th but the thing is other clubs and Iinclude Geelong, Collingwood and Sydney have drafted shockingly from time to time. It aint an exact science andwe are not alone in our stupidity form tiem to time!
Its just that they also struck gold as in Geelong around 2000 and with father/son picks. Give Scarlett and Ablett to tiges and the whole drafting scenario looks different.
FWIW I think this last lot has a few promising kids.
-
Eagles would be my No.1. They have made the most of Judd and Cuz leaving and have drafted a number of good kids from recent drafts. They'll probably be back in finals this year. A great effort for a club that won the flag only 4 years ago and played in back-to-back GFs.
On its own our drafting between 2004-07 was ordinary and it was a disgrace we had so few picks in 2005, 07 and 08 for a club that was meant to be rebuilding from scratch. But other clubs didn't do well in that period either which is why we are ranked 8th.
eg. Collingwood:
2004
10. Chris Egan ..... gone (their JON)
23. Sean Rusling .... injury prone and has done nothing yet. Just 17 games in 5 years.
37. traded for Chad Morrison ...... gone (Eagles picked up Mark LeCras)
39. Travis Cloke (F/S)
55. Adam Iacobucci .... gone
2005
2. Dale Thomas ........ overrated
5. Scott Pendlebury ...... a gun
21. Danny Stanley .... gone
23. Ryan Cook ......... played just 2 games last year
37. John Anthony ....... 48 goals last year but bombed big time in the finals.
2006
8. Ben Reid ......... done nothing yet and still playing VFL
10. Nathan Brown ...... good first year but copped a knee injury last year and only played 3 games after R11
28. Chris Dawes ....... Pies' fans think he is the second coming but he's done nothing yet at AFL level
44. Brad idiot ....... a decent 2009 but now injured
63. Tyson Goldsack ..... good first year but hasn't set the world on fire since
2007
14. traded for Cameron Wood ........ ruck stocks poor so have had to trade another first round pick for Jolly (Jack Grimes was picked up by Melbourne)
31. John McCarthy .......... played just one game
47. Toby Thoolen ............ gone
61. Jaxson Barham (F/S) .......played just six games
The Pies have drafted away their future since in the 2008 and 2009 drafts topping up. Malthouse has screwed Buckley chasing a flag in the next 2 years lol.
-
That's all very good Claw. The problem is that you concntrate on richmond alone. The full study shows we did better than 8 other teams. Now with our low picks we probably should have doen better than 8th but the thing is other clubs and Iinclude Geelong, Collingwood and Sydney have drafted shockingly from time to time. It aint an exact science andwe are not alone in our stupidity form tiem to time!
Its just that they also struck gold as in Geelong around 2000 and with father/son picks. Give Scarlett and Ablett to tiges and the whole drafting scenario looks different.
FWIW I think this last lot has a few promising kids.
hmm i believe im pretty fair and balanced on all sides. i mainly concentrate on us for obvious reasons. but lets see you mention geelong a side that has made finals every yr since 04 bar one. so clearly they have used much later picks.
04
prismal - 32 they didnt get this one wrong he was a casualty of salary cap pressure and a badly timed injury.
ablett - f/s 48. again a bit stiff who was to guess he would give it away.premiership player.
egan - 62 an AA who is now lost to the game thru injury again they got it right you cant plan for injury.
sheesh talk about running over a chinaman circumstance cost them 2 really good players and ablett imo would have been a decent player as well if he had his heart in it.
05
varcoe - 15 like tambling has been a work in progress only just starting to properly establish himself. sheesh we took jon.
west - 31 a ruckman is now borderline may have been delisted if mumford had stayed.still ruckmen take time.
owen - 35 gonski.
gamble 47 looks okay not there yet but hes still on a list.
stokes - dont rate him but he gets regular games at a very strong club may be gonski now.
have to stop here will get back. but sheesh just on these two yrs geelong with much later picks have killed us.
-
.............but sheesh just on these two yrs geelong with much later picks have killed us.
Not saying it's your opinion Claw but to the forum in general who keep sprouting the importance of tanking for high picks, I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's not the number of pick that you get, it's the effort and nouse you apply to choosing the right player that matters in the end.
-
Not so interesting that a Melbourne fan has formulated this and Melbourne have the best results but are still sitting at the bottom of the ladder.
If anyone saw the article in the paper, they also had a few photos as examples.
Tambling which had the caption 'above average player' and then there was Cale Morton who had the caption 'elite' because he'd played 40 of 44 games...
This Gloury fella is just like a Big Footy poster who overrates his own and doesn't rate anyone else!!
-
This type of 'ranking - system' is little more than a speculative exercise that is open to all sorts of bias. You can twist data to paint any sort of picture you wish to paint, I do it all the time at work, but ultimately it is results that tell the true story. The whole footy world can only make informed guesses at best, biased analysis at worst which is clearly what this fellow has done in elements.
Players and teams are always surprising experts which is why players such as Hird, who went so low in the draft, are so remembered. Every year players out perform their draft order and it's not until their retirement that you can make an accurate judgment.
Realistically I could say Tambling is an elite player and use stats to back me up and my friend could just as confidently claim he is a below average player using other indicators and be equally correct. This 'ranking' used one set of data as an guide but who's the say if you used other data you would not come to a completely divergent conclusion. Until a consistent and universally agreed set of indicators is set in place, IMHO no such ranking system can be taken seriously.
While I feel we have definitely made some blunders along the journey, as Smokey suggested, were they drafting or development blunders or a little of both? What about coaching? What about leadership? It's a very small window and narrow focus to draw any conclusions and ultimately until we reach 2012 - 2015, we won't know who has drafted, developed and recruited the best.
Stripes
-
Not so interesting that a Melbourne fan has formulated this and Melbourne have the best results but are still sitting at the bottom of the ladder.
If anyone saw the article in the paper, they also had a few photos as examples.
Tambling which had the caption 'above average player' and then there was Cale Morton who had the caption 'elite' because he'd played 40 of 44 games...
This Gloury fella is just like a Big Footy poster who overrates his own and doesn't rate anyone else!!
Morton may not be elite now but he will be. The guy can bloody play
Sadly tambling will only ever be above average at best, not his fault but thats just what he is
-
Not so interesting that a Melbourne fan has formulated this and Melbourne have the best results but are still sitting at the bottom of the ladder.
If anyone saw the article in the paper, they also had a few photos as examples.
Tambling which had the caption 'above average player' and then there was Cale Morton who had the caption 'elite' because he'd played 40 of 44 games...
This Gloury fella is just like a Big Footy poster who overrates his own and doesn't rate anyone else!!
Out of interest did they have any Tigers as elite? Lids?
-
Out of interest did they have any Tigers as elite? Lids?
Judging by the quote below, he's ranked above average.
It is worth noting maligned midfield pair Richard Tambling and Brett Deledio have statistically outperformed many of their peers of the same position type and draft group, with both earning above average value ratings.
In the 'draft ladder', it said that Cotchin, Riewoldt and Rance have star potential.
-
Out of interest did they have any Tigers as elite? Lids?
Judging by the quote below, he's ranked above average.
It is worth noting maligned midfield pair Richard Tambling and Brett Deledio have statistically outperformed many of their peers of the same position type and draft group, with both earning above average value ratings.
In the 'draft ladder', it said that Cotchin, Riewoldt and Rance have star potential.
Then the rankings are not only biased but also inconsistent from draft to draft. So Lids with two B&Fs and the rising star award gets "above average" (fair enough btw) because from his draft year Buddy is a stuff; yet despite Rioli outperforming his year level peers so far and being a key member of a premiership side, Morton in a dual-wooden spoon side is classed as "elite" ???. Laughable to have Morton as 'elite". Kreuzer and Dangerfield are ahead of him also and Cotch will go past him as well if Trent has a full season this year.
As us yep Cotch and Jack have shown their ability but Rance is yet to show any star potential. Still far too early.
-
load of rubbish ranking system
-
Gee when you look at those lists not many make it do they!!
-
.............but sheesh just on these two yrs geelong with much later picks have killed us.
Not saying it's your opinion Claw but to the forum in general who keep sprouting the importance of tanking for high picks, I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's not the number of pick that you get, it's the effort and nouse you apply to choosing the right player that matters in the end.
as one who has advocated we tank since 05 i agree with what you say. no matter the pick you wont get it right without effort and nouse. but true quality or the elite once in a genaration players go very early.
with tanking it means a pp usually two picks in the top 4 sometimes top 6. ive been okay with tanking in this time frame since 05 because i have firmly believed we have had to prune back very hard and bottom out. i think ive been proven right in this regard.
i believe there is stages in list development where gaining as much quality as possible takes precedence over all else. ask melb about this. as the list develops and grows the pendulum swings but you have to get the cattle in your system first.
look given wallace wanted a chance to take the older blokes to finals, 05 a was season we were not going to tank.even so at the end of 05 the decision to use just 3 nd picks was mindblowing. it showed a total lack of proper process as well..
so the coming 06 season we were not going to tank unfortunately we finished 9th we had to many wins on the board early and failed to beat top 8 sides. it was at the end of 06 even though we finished 9th that the real culling should have begun. it didnt happen we turn over just 6 players and 2 of those were retirements. we trade out of a top 10 pick still showing no idea about proper process, history shows even without a cull we would finish last the following season no tanking required.
.
i have no doubt if we had cut deep in 06 and at the end of 07 with a final cleanout at the end of 08 without even thinking about tanking we would have had very low finishes and our draft picks would have gone something like
07
2, 18, 19,35.
08
2, 4,21, 36.
09
2,4, 20 36.
we all know what 07 should have bought and it brings into play what you say about nouse and effort but we had a late pp it should have given us one of ward selwood or pears. it also showed we had learnt nothing and had no processes in place. so cotchin rance and say pears who was my pick at 19 35 went on morton who i thought we could have got cheaper.
08 would have delivered any combination of natinui,hill, hartlett hurley rich at 2 and 4. with post at 26 and ashley smith.
09 would have yielded trengove and one of martin or morabito. or perhaps one of talia or butcher. 20 would have yielded griffiths perhaps or one of black carlisle bastinac bartlett. 36 astbury.
i have to say if we had bottomed out properly which is a big part of tanking if we had cleaned out the list when we should tanking would not have been mentioned it would just have happened.
what good did winning games against almost exclusively bottom 8 sides do us in 05 06 and 08.
for me the tanking issue was not just about perhaps playing to many younger players or players out of position to ensure less than 5 wins. it was about starting from scratch pruning all deadwood as quickly as possible ensuring low finishes and at the same time getting a double dip at the elite while we are bottoming out.
-
.............but sheesh just on these two yrs geelong with much later picks have killed us.
Not saying it's your opinion Claw but to the forum in general who keep sprouting the importance of tanking for high picks, I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's not the number of pick that you get, it's the effort and nouse you apply to choosing the right player that matters in the end.
as one who has advocated we tank since 05 i agree with what you say. no matter the pick you wont get it right without effort and nouse. but true quality or the elite once in a genaration players go very early.
with tanking it means a pp usually two picks in the top 4 sometimes top 6. ive been okay with tanking in this time frame since 05 because i have firmly believed we have had to prune back very hard and bottom out. i think ive been proven right in this regard.
i believe there is stages in list development where gaining as much quality as possible takes precedence over all else. ask melb about this. as the list develops and grows the pendulum swings but you have to get the cattle in your system first.
look given wallace wanted a chance to take the older blokes to finals, 05 a was season we were not going to tank.even so at the end of 05 the decision to use just 3 nd picks was mindblowing. it showed a total lack of proper process as well..
so the coming 06 season we were not going to tank unfortunately we finished 9th we had to many wins on the board early and failed to beat top 8 sides. it was at the end of 06 even though we finished 9th that the real culling should have begun. it didnt happen we turn over just 6 players and 2 of those were retirements. we trade out of a top 10 pick still showing no idea about proper process, history shows even without a cull we would finish last the following season no tanking required.
.
i have no doubt if we had cut deep in 06 and at the end of 07 with a final cleanout at the end of 08 without even thinking about tanking we would have had very low finishes and our draft picks would have gone something like
07
2, 18, 19,35.
08
2, 4,21, 36.
09
2,4, 20 36.
we all know what 07 should have bought and it brings into play what you say about nouse and effort but we had a late pp it should have given us one of ward selwood or pears. it also showed we had learnt nothing and had no processes in place. so cotchin rance and say pears who was my pick at 19 35 went on morton who i thought we could have got cheaper.
08 would have delivered any combination of natinui,hill, hartlett hurley rich at 2 and 4. with post at 26 and ashley smith.
09 would have yielded trengove and one of martin or morabito. or perhaps one of talia or butcher. 20 would have yielded griffiths perhaps or one of black carlisle bastinac bartlett. 36 astbury.
i have to say if we had bottomed out properly which is a big part of tanking if we had cleaned out the list when we should tanking would not have been mentioned it would just have happened.
what good did winning games against almost exclusively bottom 8 sides do us in 05 06 and 08.
for me the tanking issue was not just about perhaps playing to many younger players or players out of position to ensure less than 5 wins. it was about starting from scratch pruning all deadwood as quickly as possible ensuring low finishes and at the same time getting a double dip at the elite while we are bottoming out.
AGREED.
for once id like to see us bottom out for more than 1 year in a row and collect the rewards like the Blues, Eagles and Hawks have done.
I have no doubt the dees will be a force in the next 3 years because they played the game smart
Dimma has done what no coach has done in the last 15 years and thats keep all the draft picks. I hope he has the brains to realize that a finish around 10-14 is a complete waste of time for us this year.
Id rather finish last and show signs of improvement for the year, than finish 10th with a goal after the siren by Mclovin
-
i tend to disagree.
You mention blues and eagles , why ??
And if we finish bottom, it doesnt mean we will pick the correct players does it.
Finishing last in 2010 will hurt the club big time.
Keeping in mind in 2 years time we will have extra 2 games interstate .
The players need to believe in their own ability and strive to win as many games as possible.
Our club has been dogged by loser mentality for long enough
-
I do not want to finsh last.
What is the point?
Between Gold Coast & West Shitney where will be few picks left.
The time to tank was 04-09. We should have done it then. No point now.
stuff the 4th best player.
-
........look given wallace wanted a chance to take the older blokes to finals, 05 a was season we were not going to tank.even so at the end of 05 the decision to use just 3 nd picks was mindblowing. it showed a total lack of proper process as well..
This is the bit I never get with you Claw. All of you valid observations and criticisms are undone, because you seem to refuse to acknowledge that the club actually acknowledges and gets this point and has made the changes needed to resolve this.
Miller is gone (a point you have belaboured elsewhere). There was no recruiting budget or process in 2004 and 2005. It was back of the envelope stuff. Processes and metrics commenced in 2006 and no earlier.
Craig Cameron assume list control in 2008. Constantly criticising items before budget, resources and process was in place no longer serves any purpose. If you have issues with the current process comment on that. Of this discussion the validity of RFC lying 8th would then appear to come from the 2006 and 07 drafts. Drafts where a more appropriate process (and metrics)were in place. The discussion should evolve to: Are our metrics and processes good enough. And what measurements would you (should be) in place to validate the process.
-
i tend to disagree.
You mention blues and eagles , why ??
And if we finish bottom, it doesnt mean we will pick the correct players does it.
Finishing last in 2010 will hurt the club big time.
Keeping in mind in 2 years time we will have extra 2 games interstate .
The players need to believe in their own ability and strive to win as many games as possible.
Our club has been dogged by loser mentality for long enough
Got to agree with you on this one Jack. It never ceases to amaze me that some people condone their club to deliberately loose, to cheat.
Think back to the Melbourne game where McMahon kicked that goal after the siren. Look at the reaction of the Melbourne players when he marked it. Look at them after the game. They were spent and shattered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbFil3lspL0
What must really hurt these guys though, is knowing that while they were slogging their guts out trying to win, their coach was trying to make them loose.
How much respect could you have for your coach knowing that???
Winning is the only culture I want to see installed in the club, and the confidence that come with it.
-
Not sure the point of bottoming out for consecutive years now the priority picks are on hold
-
i tend to disagree.
And if we finish bottom, it doesnt mean we will pick the correct players does it.
if we have no confidence that we can pick the right players with ordinary picks we are going nowhere anyway. having pps actually makes it easier to get it right. sheesh 08 we get natinui and rich or we forgo these players for some very ordinary wins against strugglers like freo melb at the time wce essendon.
where did those nothing wins get us.and more importantly to ask what did they cost us.
by the way in regards ladder position all those clubs mentioned have shot past us.so winning a few meaningless games finishing mid table has allowed lower finishing clubs to go past.
Finishing last in 2010 will hurt the club big time.
how is this so? no one expects many wins this yr. the club itself has repeatedly said this. improvement is expected but not on the win/ loss front.
if we are to have a low finish this is the yr to have it. no disappointment no recriminations no spin no hype.
the way i see it unrealistic high expectations has hurt the club big time. 9th to 16 when finals are being unrealistically shouted from the roof tops has done mega damage.
The players need to believe in their own ability and strive to win as many games as possible.
Our club has been dogged by loser mentality for long enough
its one thing for the players to believe in their ability its another all together different reality if the players dont actually have enough ability to succeed. make no mistake you need players with enough ability to succeed.
you dont think the club or the players have not striven to win as many games as possible.
hmm loser mentality it may be the case but a bigger problem has been unrealistic expectation and failure to do what is needed to be done to get the neccesary cattle into our club.
heres a scenario for you. its the last game of the yr we have 4 wins with 2 other sides. if we win we jump 3 spaces on the ladder. if we lose we know we get pick 4 and a crack at one of scully martin moraboito and tregove who we know are the 4 outstanding juniors in the draft and are a good way in front of the next rated players.i know what i would do and expect the club to do as well. if this scenario occured in a yr where a pp was involved as well you would be ropeable.
at the end of the day its all about who can get their hands on the best players. one or two wins or the best players in the comp there is no contest you work within the system provided to get your hands on the best.
-
........look given wallace wanted a chance to take the older blokes to finals, 05 a was season we were not going to tank.even so at the end of 05 the decision to use just 3 nd picks was mindblowing. it showed a total lack of proper process as well..
This is the bit I never get with you Claw. All of you valid observations and criticisms are undone, because you seem to refuse to acknowledge that the club actually acknowledges and gets this point and has made the changes needed to resolve this.
Miller is gone (a point you have belaboured elsewhere). There was no recruiting budget or process in 2004 and 2005. It was back of the envelope stuff. Processes and metrics commenced in 2006 and no earlier.
Craig Cameron assume list control in 2008. Constantly criticising items before budget, resources and process was in place no longer serves any purpose. If you have issues with the current process comment on that. Of this discussion the validity of RFC lying 8th would then appear to come from the 2006 and 07 drafts. Drafts where a more appropriate process (and metrics)were in place. The discussion should evolve to: Are our metrics and processes good enough. And what measurements would you (should be) in place to validate the process.
you see this is where we disagree. i dont believe any good processes have been putin place until the arrival of hardwick. wheather we have those processes right are yet to be seen.
-
heres a scenario for you. its the last game of the yr we have 4 wins with 2 other sides. if we win we jump 3 spaces on the ladder. if we lose we know we get pick 4 and a crack at one of scully martin moraboito and tregove who we know are the 4 outstanding juniors in the draft and are a good way in front of the next rated players.i know what i would do and expect the club to do as well. if this scenario occured in a yr where a pp was involved as well you would be ropeable.
at the end of the day its all about who can get their hands on the best players. one or two wins or the best players in the comp there is no contest you work within the system provided to get your hands on the best.
So you would actually sit down and watch the game hoping Richmond would loose?
Here's another hypothetical,
Round 22 and the side we are playing will make the finals if we loose, we are no chance. A wealthy supporter of that club stands to make a lot of money if they make the finals, so he informs RFC that he has a friend who is a Richmond supporter who is willing to donate $2m dollars to the club, as long as they loose the last match. Gee an injection of that sort of money does a lot for a struggling club. would you be happy to accept?
Which clubs that have tanked have actually gained anything from it??
Look at Richmonds finishing position for the last 10 years. (I know we traded away some draft picks, but it's still a good indication of the picks you get and where it leads you to)
1999 12th
2000 9th
2001 3rd
2002 14th
2003 13th
2004 16 th
2005 12th
2006 9th
2007 16th
2008 9th
2009 15th
So since our last finals appearance we have had high draft picks on five occasions, but where has that got us?
Compare that to say , Sydney a side that never seems to drop right off (pricks) and is always too professional, strong and well drilled for us on the field.
1999 8
2000 10
2001 7
2002 11
2003 4
2004 5
2005 1
2006 2
2007 7
2008 6
2009 12
Except for 2001 they finished higher than us so had lower draft picks, but still continue to outperform us, easily.
What is more important than, overall, than the actual picks is how you use those picks and how you develop the players selected. The structure and culture at the club is what will make or break you.
Again lets compare clubs, this time hawthorne
RFC HFC
1999 12th 9th
2000 9th 6th
2001 3rd 4th
2002 14th 10th
2003 13th 9th
2004 16 th 15th
2005 12th 14th
2006 9th 11th
2007 16th 6th
2008 9th 1st
2009 15th 9th
Generally over that period they finished higher than us, but not by much. When they did finish lower it was never more than two positions lower, so in terms of access to draft picks Richmond have had a slightly 'better' run overall, yet two years after finishing a mere two spots lower than us in 2006, they were celebrating another premiership win.
You don't need to cheat to be succsessful, you need to have an organisation where everyone works together focussed on one goal. You need to know where you are going and what it takes to get there. This is what Richmond have lacked, not early draft picks
You need hard work and you need that mongrel never say die attitude, something that is not fostered by match fixing.
Deliberately loosing games is not part of the equation. Just as winning is a habit, so is loosing.
-
Chicken and egg argument really but you present a pretty compelling argument their al. Seems pretty clear it has been our recruitment (or lack there of), resources and development that has been lacking at Tigerland for decades. We struggle to find good player but even when we do they seem to go to the dogs. To me that says yes we need to keep recruiting well and taking advance of bad years by securing good players but even more importantly, working to teach the new players and indoctrinate them into the sort of culture that promotes success and ultimately a flag.
People may shoot me down for this but I am happy that our older players are gone. For all the onfield worth they brought to the club they carried the disease of failure along with them. They were part of a long era of pain, they had been taught failure, either consciously or subconsciously, from those before them and the instability of the administration and coaches above them. They knew how to survive as individuals but had no idea how to cultivate a ethos that would draw the team around them and demand success at all cost regardless of the pain. They had no idea what it took and no idea how to teach it.
Hardwick has a new team and new club around him. Everything is starting from scratch. He brings with him a group of new coaches that are all aligned and share a joint vision. He leads by his actions and he is unbending in his direction. Hardwick has the backing of those above him and those below him. He is straight forward and uncomplicated which the players understand and respect. He has the basis for success in his hands - the hard part is to keep everyone unified and on the same path regardless of the obstacles and fears that beset us.
At this moment I think I agree with al - we need to work with what we have. We need to develop success in the players that are with us now. Our culture has been our biggest problem and regardless of whether we finish 1st or last it is this culture and player education that should be the zenith of our efforts. Any players we gain from the draft from here on out should be treated as bonuses and to replace those who can not follow the future goals that are set.
Really this is Year 0 and whatever happens from here is built upon the 2010 foundation. I just hope it is sturdy enough to take what is yet to come.... :pray
Stripes
-
People may shoot me down for this but I am happy that our older players are gone. For all the onfield worth they brought to the club they carried the disease of failure along with them. They were part of a long era of pain, they had been taught failure, either consciously or subconsciously, from those before them and the instability of the administration and coaches above them. They knew how to survive as individuals but had no idea how to cultivate a ethos that would draw the team around them and demand success at all cost regardless of the pain. They had no idea what it took and no idea how to teach it.
Beautifully put stripes.
Oh, as for the chicken and the egg, the egg came first ;D
-
Eagles would be my No.1. They have made the most of Judd and Cuz leaving and have drafted a number of good kids from recent drafts. They'll probably be back in finals this year. A great effort for a club that won the flag only 4 years ago and played in back-to-back GFs.
On its own our drafting between 2004-07 was ordinary and it was a disgrace we had so few picks in 2005, 07 and 08 for a club that was meant to be rebuilding from scratch. But other clubs didn't do well in that period either which is why we are ranked 8th.
^this^
I'm just gobsmacked that we took so few picks in that time frame