is he saying we will only be looking at mids at 12?? sure seems that way to me.if this is correct then they are bloody fools. i will be watching keenly to see what talls will be there at 12.
do they soley rely on their formula. i mean to say the formula said conca a few yrs ago but the obvious one who didnt meet that formula as much as conca did was heppell. at what stage do they say hey no we must go with this bloke based on what we have seen backed up by formula that is slightly less impressive.
imo when you look at kids play the single greatest assett you have is your eyes and ability to translate what you see to upside and ability to perform at the top level.
to me our formula doesnt work and we religiously stick to it no matter what we see rather than it being a good guide to what we see.
And this is why you have no idea. You cannot judge just on what you see or gut feel. You have to look at the data. The FACTS. these are indisputable. Everyone talks about "Moneyball" but I'm not sure how many people have actually read the book about Billy Bean and understand the premise of it. For years baseball scouts based their selections on the look and feel of the players but this was proved to be entirely a false way of selecting players.
If you want real insight into the selection process you should sign up for Club 80 and come along to the draft night in a couple of weeks. It is the biggest eye opener ever. I KNOW our recruiters do a great job and we are in good hands.
Where the facts saying conca > heppel?
Are the facts saying Ellis > laverde, cocka, Weller etc?
Smells like bullshye.
Something like this is more worthy of biggest eye opener ever:
I don't think club 80 would rock my boat