It has to be a major concern when our best player last year (Foley) and our best 1st year player (King) both came via the rookie list. It doesn't say much for our more highly rated draft picks.
-
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.
Is Wallace going to be another Rob Walls?
- Thread starter The_General
- Start date
MalenyTiger said:
Does it say even more then MT that other clubs even overlooked these guys.....................
mojo31 said:
Mojo,
Given that Richmond already has an abundance of runners & flankers but is seriously lacking in other areas, would you consider trading Deledio for a top 5 and a top 10 draft pick if someone was prepared to offer it at the end of the year?
This would allow the club to fast track their rebuilding and select a couple of extra quality prospects that fill needs (KPPs, Rucks, Inside midfielders). As good as Deledio is, he does not address those problems.
I know it’s a radical proposal but as you’ve pointed out Richmond desperately need to address key structural deficiencies.
You can almost argue that Deledio is expendable (for the right price) given the amount of players on the list that can fill his position, but obviously not to the same level.
Jason King said:
I had a bit of a look for you. here are the pick 10s from a section that I looked.
1994 Caracella - 187 games
1995 Presti - 193 games
1996 Nathan Brown - 188 games
1997 O'Bree - 192 games
1998 Brandon Hill (did not bother to look him up and will list him at 0 games)
1999 McPharlin - 113
2000 Mcmahon - 114
2001 Sam power - 84
2002 Laycock - 42 games
Now lets add all that up. I get 1113 games in total from that period. The draft has been running for 22 years. That includes this year where of course no kid has played yet since there has been no official games yet. So lets just say its 21 years. Which is pretty silly really even doing that since that includes people who have had 1 year only. Hence why I only started in 2002. Pretty much all of those guys are still playing apart from the 1994 Caracella and Hill who was a uberdud.
So 1113 divided by 21 = 53 games. I of course could go back to 1987 and keep adding and add 2003,4,5,6, and so on. But whats the point? The number is not 30 and not even close to it. I have not read the Champion Data article that the article seems to reference. I think its more likely that the Age article is the one with the errors and they have not checked correctly. Maybe its referring to games played at the club who drafted them. Hence O'Bree, Mcpaharlin and co being almost 0 then. But all said and done the article is just a baised slant to back up the comments by a coach who wants the draft age raised and therefore has his own agenda. Coaches often do this and its their perogative. But that does not mean that the journalist can just pluck numbers out of a hat that are wrong, or are not explained and pass it off as an article.
The draft matters a great deal. It's not really pot luck at all and its a pretty decent calculated risk. the days of Anthony Bannick are long gone now. The odds are improving and their is more exposure and information out their. There are the U16s and u18s Champs. There is the AIS and scholarships and pathway programs. Their are dvds of junior games. there is draft camp testing and at the AIS and at TAC games. Their is 21 years of statistical data to analyze on the draft and on draft camp testing and what it all means. there is extensive recruiting netwroks and reputations good and bad for recruiters based on how they have gone for a long time.
then their is the development of your draft picks. where each club collects data (or should) on the sorts of training load (based on their own experiences) that an 18 year old in their first year and a 19 year old in their 2nd can manage without breaking down. Whats best in terms of a full VFL game or half an SAFL game for development. When can a junior ruck be ready for the AFL ruck and same for a KP. no many kms can a kid run in the AFL before it becomes a concern for injury. What to do about OP and stress fractures early on.
A hell of a lot of things.
But all said and done the main thing to be learnt here is that articles are often wrong. The numbers they quote are plucked out of thin air or lazily transcribed and not out into context. These numbers then get taken as fact and all of a sudden its an urban myth and its hard to trace back to where it all started.
barista said:
Good question and an interesting perspective to look a little outside the square.
Their is nothing wrong with the style of player that Deledio is. Nothing at all. Its actually harder to find a player with the skills of Deledio than it is someone who can compete well for contested football and use it under pressure. Think about the last few drafts. How many can run and carry like Deledio and kick as long and well on either foot and play all those positions? Take a contested mark up forward 1 out and take 3 bounces from half back and kick it 60 to the goal square?
Deledio is good 1 on 1. but centre square play is not always about that. its about the blocking off the ball, the screens, the scragging, reading the ruckmen and then having awareness about the 5 players around you and who is coming in off the square and so forth. Its also the angles and the player who are short and stocky have advantages in winning the ball in close. the short striders with powerful legs and hips who are made to win it and feed it out by hand. The ones who are agile pushing off either foot and can stop quickly and evade and can break a tackle due to powerful torsos. They have terrific acceleration over the first few meters and are made for in tight work and stoppage to stoppage.
Deledio on the other hand is a long strider and nearly 190cms and a super athlete. But does not have that stocky physique. He is lean and well built. Has superb top end speed but his foirst 2 steps and agility dont set him a apart. its the domain of Kerr, Mitchell, Harris, Burns, R Harvey etc. Those shorter, thick body types who are very agile and are good over a few meters but are not really quick in open play. hard runners but not the sort like Deledio who would run away from them in a footrace.
You dont have to be 180cms to be a quality extractor. But it certainally does not hurt. MIght hurt you on other positions but not in the centre square.
So finding a player with the qualities of Deledio is extremely hard. So I would not be trading him really. Its just that the club needs to also try and developo him more as a midfielder who can win it in tight but also be damaging as a first dibs receiver from Tuck and Foley. this is where he will be tagged as clubs force Tuck to kick and wont allow easy handball recieves to Deledio. Then it comes down to a push off from Deledio, some blokcing and some actual gut busting running from him and changing the point of attack as he changes where he stands and is on the move and wont allow the tagger to dictate to him.
Also if you have a huge difference between say Tuck and Deledio in terms of kicking skills. Then why not look to replace Tuck at times with a better skilled extractor who can hurt teams. This can be addressed in the draft. This has not been addressed so far and hence my posting about it. You want to maximize Deledio as a player then go and draft some more inside types as well who can take the pressure off him. Go out and look for a poor mans Foley. Every year their are a number of them. this year their was Masten, Palmer, Greenwood, Grimes and Selwood of the top of my head.
Richmond took Rance. Filled an important need and rated him best available at the pick. Fair enough. Its exactly what I would have done as well. But the other pick was for Mcmahon who does not really fill a huge need compared to others. This is the pick that could have picked up Greenwood or Selwood. its only 1 pick and is not going to be the ruin of Richmond. But adding that to what was done in other drafts it is a list that is not really a good mix and addressing structural needs and allowing for balanced development.
I am not going to trawl through other drafts and pick things out. I have done it before and don’t think it’s needed. Richmond need some more extractors to replace Johnson who is ineffective largely now and Tuck who cant kick well enough to hurt teams enough. You ask your young players to take their turn. You also draft kids who are suited to being developed in that role and phase out the other 2. You pick best available but also push up the types who show good skills I tight and in packs at TAC level or U18s in their state and at the U18 Champs.
Rich, Hartlett, *smile*, Broadbent are a few of the names who play that type of role for the next draft. Their are others of course and that’s just a few.
I think since its going to be a strong draft its going to be almost impossible to actually get another top1 0 pick of anyone unless you trade someone you cant really afford to. Veterans wont get that and you would have to trade a young player you want to build around. Sort of defeats the purpose. What’s more likely and more sound is to try and upgrade a pick or look to acquire a 2nd round pick in a deep draft. Often those 2nd round picks in a strong draft are as good as a late first rounder in weaker drafts.
Pick 25 = pick 15 and so on.
Look to upgrade pick 20 and a player to get pick 12. But often the problem with that is that means a club is giving up their first pick and that’s hard to swallow. A strong draft and we don’t start our draft until pick 30 is hard to seel to your members and hard to stomach. Trading your 2nd rounder and keeping your top 10 pick on the other hand to a club who feels they are not in full rebuild mode is much easier to do.
If that 2nd rounder is likely to project into an area where its likely to be a plethora of the types that Richmond need and they are ranked fairly equally and so can pick the ones who are best fit then that’s the sort of thing you could do.
So for example if you traded someone for pick 20 and had 10 kids you thought were elite to close to it and would take any of them if they fell to 20 but thought it very unlikely. Then had the next 10 players on your ranking and 3 were KP's and athletic and showed versatility, 2 were 200cm athletic rucks with decent footskills and legitimate tap ruckmen, 3 were centre square players who had good skills under pressure and tackled, good tanks and good "football' speed (not just draft camp speed) and were clean decision makers and had consistent effort from week to week. If that was your short hand list and the other 2 were a half forward flank with great speed and skills but not good in close and borderline endurance and the other was an attacking half back who played loose and wide.
Then if that’s your list and while it had a sliding scale from 11 to 20 it was fairly even overall in that group and you could pick for need and still picking best player available. You pick over what’s left and may have to decide about the ruckmen or the inside player at 20. Might depend if you got Naitanui or Rich or someone else with your first pick. Might also depend on what you might get later in the draft and how you rate the others after 20.
Of course its a bit easier if you get picks 1 and 2 and 18.
Look at the structure in the next draft as well as picking the best players. Its possible to do both as often their are 3 or 4 at each pick that you are considering. That should help Edwards, Cotchin, Tambling, Deledio in the future and be a better long term building block. Meantime try and squeeze as much as possible out of the youth you have by trying to balance out their development for themselves and the team.
That does not mean Deledio, Tambling and Edwards all playing forward. It means Deledio rotating on and off the ball and Tambling on and off the wing with Edwards. Then shifting Deledio back and moving Tambling into the square for 5 minutes. Then taking Tambling off for a break and bringing Polo on into the centre square. Then pushing Deledio 1 out in the square with no real matchup for him with the interchanges for the opposition to sneak a goal and bringing on Tuck to try to win the crucial centre clearance to get it quickly to Deledio who has a mismatch and is being defended by Gilbee after Harris has gone off with a knock.
Slowly over the course of the year some minutes are put into the young players to round out their development all over the ground as well as taking into account where the game situation is and what’s in their best interests. You want Tambling and others to improve their skills in close then they need experience in that position. You have to create an opportunity for them and wear the good and bad consequences of that. Slowly evaluate it over a period of games and see if its working or not and if they are improving in the roles you are asking of them.
Or you can play Foley, Tuck and Johnson almost exclusively and be competitive for the first 15 minutes of the quater and be run over at the end of them and at the end of game as other teams rotate. Not really develop other options and talk about the youth needing time, come up with some stats to back things up, put some spin on it and convince the supporters their was little else you could do.
Pagan did this for his tenure at Carlton. Blamed the draft penalties and injuries and the youth needing time. But did not try and develop other options. It was Scotland, Stevens and Kouta for nearly all the game in the centre square. Competitive but were overrun by other teams who would rotate more and pick them off as they tired. Pagan in his wisdom decided that Kouta at over 30 and with a serious history of knee problems would play the most minutes of anyone on the list in 2005. Not on and off the bench as an impact player but 120 minutes a game. No wonder he was largely ineffective the following year and then retired half way into 2007. Just ground him down and did not develop others and just a short term way of thinking.
If you are rebuilding you have to look past the results and into the process and be insightful and strong enough to see what’s going on. That’s why you pick the best option and give them 5 years to do it and understand what’s going on.
Terry won more than his fair share of close games in 2005 and 6 and this came crashing back to earth last year when the coin toss games did not go his way. But if you were watching closely you could see problems and what happened last year was not a huge surprise. Yes I know supporters love these close games and can beat their chest about them and say their club deserved it and had more heart. But often they come down to an umpiring decision or the bounce of the ball or just plain bad luck with an injury on the day. When you lose them it’s the umpires fault. When you win them its all about wanting it more and being harder and better under pressure.
Often the % is a better indication of where the club is going rather than the wins and losses.
mojo31 said:
Champion data dont release stats to the public and being that they are one of the official licensed stat collectors, i would say there is little chance they got it wrong. If there is an error its from Roos or the jorno who quoted him.
I am not saying the draft doesnt matter, i am saying its not as effective as it could be. When you look at drafts such as the NBA draft, players routinely get selected and dominate the best league in the world. Their bodies are built, there skills are honed and they are ready made for the rigours of the game. It all comes down to age with our draft. An extra 1 or 2 years of development at sanfl/vfl level isnt going to hurt the length of a kids career. Thats my opinion anyway.