I think criticism of Jackson is harsh. Yes we lack depth but that comes from the disastous years of Beck and Miller. It takes 4-6 years for 'good ordinary' footballers to mature. There are few of those because of the incompetence of those responsible for recruiting pre 2007. The lowlight of which was the Deledio etc draft with only one in the five early picks we had left on th list.
-
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.
Francis Jackson Era
- Thread starter taraba
- Start date
Streak said:
SCOOP said:
2006-2009 (any later is too early to judge):
Richmond - Grimey, King, Nahas, Cousins, Grigg (Colliins), Browne from 27 picks.
Collingwood - Goldsack, Wellingham, Barham, Brown, Blair, Keeffe from 23 picks.
Hawthorn - Suckling, Stokes, Savage, Bruest from 23 picks.
West Coast - McGinnity, Cockie, Hams from 22 picks.
Disco08 said:
Including Grigg is drawing a long bow Disco, player trades are seperate to the issue of utilising the rookie draft and late ND picks. I think the telling statistic is that Nahas, King and Cousins were all mature age players.
Some time ago, circa 2008/9, I conducted a research project into drafting for Craig Cameron and looked at the total of draft picks from a period beginning from 1997 to 2007, when most AFL clubs had got their act together as far as drafting was concerned.
Since the project was 3 to 4 years ago, I have no reservations about posting the results now. The summary statistics are below. Please note that because AFL Drafting does not conform to Normal Distributions, less weight is placed on Mean and Standard Deviation values. More emphasis should be placed on Median and Quartile values.
Median = halfway point
Quartiles = between 25& to 75% ranges.
Also, that because we looked at drafts from 1997 to 2007, many players were still mid-career and had yet play their full number of career games.
From the data above, one can see from the Drafting period of 10 years to 2007, a pick No.1 to 10, would play between 19 and 131 games; the halfway point being 66 games. The focus was on games played.
We can see that there is very good value in round 1 & 2 draft picks but less of a return after. However, there appeared to be good return from a very small number of late draft picks, which, when looked at individually, were mature players taken late in the draft that did give 2 to 3 years of good service in their twilight phases. First round PSD picks gave good value. Only a relatively small number of rookie picks gave any return.
The message from this was that the first two rounds were crucial for drafting junior players. The middle rounds are speculative, and late round picks are best used for twilight players.
How did Richmond go in this?
Considering the project ran from 1997 to 2007, there are a number of phases for Richmond.
1997 to 2001 - drafting twilight players from other clubs.
2002 to 2005 - poor recruiting resources.
2006 to 2007 - the initial rebuilding of the RFC recruiting department.
So how did the Tiges go?
Actually, we didn't do too badly, considering.
Using the Median, we shared a middle position of 16 clubs, with 3 other clubs - Port, Essendon and StKilda.
Fremantle, Hawthorn & Geelong were the best teams.
Freo have been excellent at drafting talented juniors; less so at retaining them.
Yes, many talented Freo juniors had great careers after leaving Freo.
Using the 75%ile, Richmond were 7th of 16, Hawthorn Geelong & Freo still dominating.
Unfortunately, when looking closer at the elite players of the AFL, Richmond fell to 10th of 16, which meant that the Tiges were less expert at picking elite 10 year plus players.
I look at these stats now, and using gut-feel to estimate how the RFC has performed more recently and I feel that we seem to have improved. We are more competitive in our recruiting results now.
This year is, coincidentally 5 years after the ending year for the research project - 2007, 2012.
I should look at it again, sometime.
It was a lot of work though. Not sure I have the time.
Also, I'm sure there is someone in the RFC, now, using the template I created back then who could provide an uptodate report.
Since the project was 3 to 4 years ago, I have no reservations about posting the results now. The summary statistics are below. Please note that because AFL Drafting does not conform to Normal Distributions, less weight is placed on Mean and Standard Deviation values. More emphasis should be placed on Median and Quartile values.
Median = halfway point
Quartiles = between 25& to 75% ranges.
Also, that because we looked at drafts from 1997 to 2007, many players were still mid-career and had yet play their full number of career games.
| Frequencies | Quartiles | |
| Pop'n Size Mean Std Dev | 25.0 50 (Median) 75.0 | |
| ND Picks 1-10 | 110 78.6 64.7 | 19.0 66.5 131.3 |
| ND Picks 11-20 | 110 56.9 55.0 | 10.0 38.5 81.5 |
| ND Picks 21-30 | 110 43.4 51.6 | 5.0 17.0 71.8 |
| ND Picks 31-40 | 110 43.9 54.3 | 4.0 17.0 73.5 |
| ND Picks 41-50 | 109 38.3 48.0 | 3.0 19.0 54.5 |
| ND Picks 51-60 | 104 31.7 42.9 | 0.0 9.5 47.8 |
| ND Picks 61-70 | 77 24.7 40.8 | 0.0 9.0 32.5 |
| ND Picks 71-80 | 68 32.5 45.5 | 0.0 7.0 51.3 |
| ND Picks 81-90 | 26 29.8 43.5 | 0.0 12.0 50.5 |
| ND Picks 91-99 | 2 0.0 0.0 | 0.0 0.0 0.0 |
| PSD Picks 1-10 | 92 32.8 42.6 | 3.0 18.5 38.0 |
| PSD Picks 11-20 | 14 21.6 30.7 | 3.0 8.0 33.5 |
| RD Picks 1-10 | 107 20.4 34.6 | 0.0 0.0 26.0 |
| RD Picks 11-20 | 107 17.8 35.4 | 0.0 0.0 13.0 |
| RD Picks 21-30 | 103 19.8 40.9 | 0.0 0.0 17.0 |
| RD Picks 31-40 | 89 21.1 42.6 | 0.0 0.0 23.0 |
| RD Picks 41-50 | 86 11.1 25.0 | 0.0 0.0 9.0 |
| RD Picks 51-60 | 80 9.2 22.6 | 0.0 0.0 3.8 |
| RD Picks 61-70 | 51 16.2 42.1 | 0.0 0.0 8.0 |
We can see that there is very good value in round 1 & 2 draft picks but less of a return after. However, there appeared to be good return from a very small number of late draft picks, which, when looked at individually, were mature players taken late in the draft that did give 2 to 3 years of good service in their twilight phases. First round PSD picks gave good value. Only a relatively small number of rookie picks gave any return.
The message from this was that the first two rounds were crucial for drafting junior players. The middle rounds are speculative, and late round picks are best used for twilight players.
How did Richmond go in this?
Considering the project ran from 1997 to 2007, there are a number of phases for Richmond.
1997 to 2001 - drafting twilight players from other clubs.
2002 to 2005 - poor recruiting resources.
2006 to 2007 - the initial rebuilding of the RFC recruiting department.
So how did the Tiges go?
Actually, we didn't do too badly, considering.
Using the Median, we shared a middle position of 16 clubs, with 3 other clubs - Port, Essendon and StKilda.
Fremantle, Hawthorn & Geelong were the best teams.
Freo have been excellent at drafting talented juniors; less so at retaining them.
Yes, many talented Freo juniors had great careers after leaving Freo.
Using the 75%ile, Richmond were 7th of 16, Hawthorn Geelong & Freo still dominating.
Unfortunately, when looking closer at the elite players of the AFL, Richmond fell to 10th of 16, which meant that the Tiges were less expert at picking elite 10 year plus players.
I look at these stats now, and using gut-feel to estimate how the RFC has performed more recently and I feel that we seem to have improved. We are more competitive in our recruiting results now.
This year is, coincidentally 5 years after the ending year for the research project - 2007, 2012.
I should look at it again, sometime.
It was a lot of work though. Not sure I have the time.
Also, I'm sure there is someone in the RFC, now, using the template I created back then who could provide an uptodate report.
bullus_hit said:
Given it was a straight player for player trade achieved with a player we picked in the 4th round I don't think it's a long bow at all. How often do players taken in the late rounds even get traded?
jb03 said:
They have indeed, but really not that far ahead of what we've done considering the apparent massive gap in funding.
Disco08 said:
Collins was a solid pick but it has taken some of Hartley's expertise to make this a true win for the RFC. I hope Collins goes on to become a regular for Carlton but it would be hard to argue that Collins has set the world on fire over the past 2 years. It's a bit like claiming Tambling was a success because we grabbed Elton and an extra draft concession.
Col.W.Kurtz said:
Its OK Col.
When Disco put FJ alongside Stephen Wells he realised there wasnt much point spending any more time on it.
I'll let people look at Frank's record when he was the only paid recruiter working for a critically understaffed basket case football club to decide whether or not he's earned the right to be held in high esteem as a recruiter.
Depends how optimistic you are about our future I guess. I reckon we've got enough young quality to form the nucleus of a very succesful side (for the first time ever). Frank's the man most responsible for that.
Depends how optimistic you are about our future I guess. I reckon we've got enough young quality to form the nucleus of a very succesful side (for the first time ever). Frank's the man most responsible for that.
Disco08 said:
I'm a fan of FJ and think he deserves a fair bit of credit for his work in the early rounds. The key from here will be the way he handles the upgrades of our bottom six. A combination of State Leaguers, a couple of free agents and a couple of Hartley specials should make the world of difference. Jackson will probably be heartened by the imminent arrival of Chaplin, and if Cloke comes across, he'll have full licence to grab the 3 of the best mids in the country.
Tony Braxton-Hicks
There are no stupid ideas, just stupid people
Certainly the focus changed under Frank. Miller loved looking at agility test videos and lawnmowing ability. When Frank took over he set about benchmarking athletic abilities and defining AFL qualities. Now when it comes to a trade we will weigh these up with what sort of kid we're likely to get with that pick. So, in drafting and trading, everything is measurable rather than naked instinct.
SCOOP said:
I know a lot of this will be a repeat of things I've said elsewhere recently, but I really feel this type of criticism needs to be looked at. Not singling you out at all SCOOP as Leysy, justice and others have all made similar criticisms.
I guess the best way to measure Frank's performance is to compare him to the best, namely Stephen Wells (one of the more influential men in AFL history I think Leysy said, or something similar). In making this comparison I'll focus on the years leading up to Geelong's first flag. One thing to bear in mind is that Well's had already been in charge of Geelong's well staffed recruiting department for 6 years prior to this comparison whereas Frank was the sole recruiting employee at Richmond for the first 3 years of his appointment.
Wells (2000-2006):
1st round successes: Bartel, Kelly, Mackie, Varcoe, Selwood
1st round failures: Tenace
2nd round successes: Johnson, Lonergan, Prismall, Djerrkura
2nd round failures: Gardiner, Thurley, West, Owen
3rd round successes: Hunt
3rd round failures: Playfair, Spencer, Gamble
Late pick successes: Rooke, Johnson, Moloney, Byrnes, Stokes, Egan
Late pick failures: Lowther, Simpson, Chambers, S. Chapman, Clark, McCarthy, Lord, Slade, Carrazzo, Chatfield, Jorgensen, Smith, Koulouriotis, Buckland, Allen, Garth, Batchelor, Sherringham, Grima, Slade, Hunt, Hogan, Bedford, Reynolds, Davenport
Not included: G. Ablett, N. Ablett, Blake, Hawkins, Callan (all father son selections)
Jackson (2006-2010)
1st round successes: Reiwoldt, Cotchin, Vickery, Martin, Conca
1st round failures:
2nd round successes: Edwards, Rance, (Selwood), Post, Griffiths, Batchelor
2nd round failures:
3rd round successes: Astbury, Dea, Helbig
3rd round failures: Macdonald
Late pick successes: Collins, King, Nahas, Browne, Grimes, Houli,
Late pick failrues: Connors, Petersen, Clingan, Putt, Gourdis, Silvester, Gilligan, Taylor, Webberley, Nason, Hicks, Contin, Roberts, Westhoff, Derrickx, Jakobi, O'Reilly
So:
1st - Wells (6/9) Frank (5/5)
2nd - Wells (5/10) Frank (6/6) (3/6)
3rd - Wells (3/6) Frank (3/4) (0/4)
Late - Wells (6/35) Frank (6/23)
The second set of numbers for the 2nd and 3rd rounds represent the outcome where all of Post, Griffiths, Batchelor, Astbury, Dea and Helbig fail.
Corrections? Interpretations?
