Sound the alarm series - Grand Final Coaches Box footage

[spook]

The only thing I’ll commend Salt for is his going into the Richmond box and congratulating Dimma and the boys. Other than that he can get stuffed!

I thought he should have waited until the game was over. Don't walk into another team's coaches' box while the game is on.

 

[Baloo]

I thought he should have waited until the game was over. Don't walk into another team's coaches' box while the game is on.

Game was as good as over by then. Had he waited until the game was over there wouldn't have been anyone in the Box.

 

[Harry]

We were the unluckiest club for 37 years.

 

[spook]

Game was as good as over by then. Had he waited until the game was over there wouldn't have been anyone in the Box.

Do it on the ground. Don't interrupt your opponent during the game. Grandstanding IMO.

 

[tigertim]

There's a bit of chopping up to suit the storyline.

Yes, I know it’s edited but it’s still delicious. (Thank you Bruce)

 

[larabee]

I think there is a bit more to drafting than just luck.
This table from draftguru clearly shows the higher the pick (both National Draft and Rookie draft) the longer the career. There is a reason why clubs trade for higher picks after all.

I added in the column 'Total Career Games' to make it easier to calculate the average games played overall. It is 65.
For National Draft only, the average games played is 83, for Rookie Draft it is 34.

Recruiters do an extraordinary amount of work to target the player/s they think they need, and the results speak for themselves. I doubt you would get the same results by chucking a dart at a list of draftees pinned to the wall...

Draft

Pick Range

Players Picked

Age Average

Total Career Games

Career Games Average

Club Games Average

Brownlow Votes Average

Average Years to Play a 20 Game Season

Average Years to Get Past 50 Games

Picks Needed to Get a 50 Gamer

Picks Needed to Get a 100 Gamer

Picks Needed to Get a 200 Gamer

Picks Needed to Get an All-Australian

Picks Needed to Get a Sub-10 Gamer

Picks Needed to Get a Zero Gamer

National

Pick 1

18​

17.9​

4187​

232.6​

170.2​

59.9​

2.5​

3.5​

1​

1​

1.6​

2​

-

-

National

Pick 2

18​

17.9​

3523​

195.7​

155.3​

39.9​

2.9​

3.8​

1.1​

1.2​

1.6​

2​

-

-

National

Picks 3 to 5

54​

18.2​

8813​

163.2​

121.4​

39.1​

4.2​

5.4​

1.2​

1.4​

2.6​

3.2​

13.5​

-

National

Picks 6 to 10

90​

18.2​

11187​

124.3​

91.6​

17.9​

6.7​

6.8​

1.5​

1.7​

3.9​

6​

6.9​

30​

National

Picks 11 to 20

180​

18.1​

21186​

117.7​

92.5​

16.5​

7.2​

7.1​

1.6​

2.1​

3.8​

5.8​

5.8​

15​

National

Picks 21 to 30

179​

18.4​

15233​

85.1​

64.1​

8.2​

7.9​

8.1​

1.9​

2.7​

7.5​

14.9​

4.4​

13.8​

National

Picks 31 to 50

356​

18.9​

28195​

79.2​

62.4​

10.6​

8.2​

8.3​

2.2​

3.1​

7.4​

9.6​

3.4​

6.6​

National

Picks 51 to 70

307​

19.5​

14460​

47.1​

38.3​

4​

9.1​

9.3​

3.7​

5.5​

12.8​

27.9​

2.1​

4​

National

Later Picks

156​

19.8​

6068​

38.9​

32.2​

2.7​

9.2​

9.2​

3.8​

6.2​

31.2​

78​

1.9​

2.7​

Rookie

Picks 1 to 10

136​

19.5​

6174​

45.4​

32.2​

3.7​

9.5​

9.9​

3.3​

5​

19.4​

45.3​

1.7​

2.4​

Rookie

Picks 11 to 30

259​

19.5​

9842​

38​

29.4​

2.8​

10.5​

10.3​

4.5​

6​

18.5​

28.8​

1.6​

2​

Rookie

Picks 31 to 50

204​

19.7​

6814​

33.4​

26.6​

3.4​

10.3​

10.5​

4.9​

7​

20.4​

34​

1.5​

1.9​

Rookie

Later Picks

181​

19.5​

3892​

21.5​

14.7​

1.3​

10.9​

11.1​

7.2​

11.3​

30.2​

90.5​

1.3​

1.6​

AFL Draft Pick Value Comparison - All Time - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

 

[tigertim]

There's a bit of chopping up to suit the storyline.

At one point early in the last quarter Scott is clearly on his way out the box to congratulate our coaches and he calls for them to get Harry Taylor back so he can finish his career on the ground and they cut it in to make it look like Taylor is struggling with an injury on the bench.



But when you draft someone, how do you know they will have the mental and physical aptitude to withstand the hard work, or to work hard enough for long enough?



The rookie stuff is interesting. In some ways rookies should be easier picks because they tend to be more exposed as players and individuals but there is also a dilution of the talent pool.

Rookies under Hardwick:
Tom Hislop Matt Thomas Sydney Stack
Jamie O'Reilly (B) Todd Banfield Marlion Pickett
Robert Hicks Anthony Miles Ben Miller
Ben Jakobi Matt Arnot Mate Colina (B)
Pat Contin Jayden Short
Nicholas Westhoff Jason Castagna
John Heslin (B) Kane Lambert
Addam Maric Ivan Soldo (B)
Ben Darrou Mabior Chol
Steven Verrier Callum Moore
Gibson Turner Tyson Stengle
Piva Wright Derek Eggmollesse-Smith
Sam Lonergan Liam Baker
Orren Stephenson Mav Weller
Cadeyn Williams Jacob Townsend
Gideon Simon (B) Jake Aarts

36 names there, but I'll call it 35 since Townsend is a different scenario. By my take you have 6 successes (Short, Castagna, Lambert, Soldo, Baker, Pickett) 1 borderline (Miles), 5 undetermined (Egg, Aarts, Stack, Miller, Colina) and 23 misses.

Assuming we draw a line through Egg and Miller it's at best 9/35 with Colina pending. Not sure I'd call that consistent.

Bloody hell man. You just mentioned how few games a drafted player plays on average. Richmond pick out Short (100 games), Castagna (104 games), Lambert (121) Soldo (34), Baker (50) Pickett (27) (all premiership players, some multiple, a JD medalist, ) and Miles (61) out of rookie drafts where the success rate is abysmal and you try and downplay it.

Also, you go back to Dimmas commencement as your reference point, try going back to say 2013 (you know, after our rookie draft picks weren’t so “unlucky”) and it’s an even greater strike rate, 6 out of 18!

If you care to, go and draft a list of the the other 17 clubs rookie drafting and show the list of recruiting luckier than ours.

 

[AngryAnt]

Assuming we draw a line through Egg and Miller it's at best 9/35 with Colina pending. Not sure I'd call that consistent.

yeah maybe its confirmation bias - seeing short, george, bakes, etc as premiership players from rookies certainly makes our rookie choices look good. Maybe if they'd gone to another club that was less successful or had a different system or poorer development they may have disappeared without trace

which is kind of my point

 

[seven]

The harder you work the luckier you get.

Yep.
My take has always been, they more money you bet, the more money you win back.

 

[tigertim]

Yep.
My take has always been, they more money you bet, the more money you win back.

Exactly! Which reminds me, I received a hot tip, North to win the flag. Put your house on it.

 

[bob]

In football, I think there's a huge amount of luck required for success. The entire game is based upon predicting the future.

Every sport involves the 'rub of the green' type luck, how the ball bounces, the weather, the decisions you get by officials etc but in AFL that is multiplied by 1000 times.

Take recruiting for example. In the Australian Cricket team you select a player to play a test match next week, based on their form at first class level. You can see how they execute their skills against high quality opponents and how they play the game. You know their physical condition, how durable they are, how they prepare and recover and what sort of a team member they are.

In AFL you draft a kid in high school, and hope that in 3 or 4 years time they have developed the necessary mental and physical attributes to be a high performing elite athlete. Something like 40% of players ever on an AFL list don't play 10 games. 60% don't play 50. The average is 19. And that's from players who actually play a game.

To be a successful team not only do you have to somehow beat the odds in the success of the players you draft, but you have to also get a group together who work well together and form good working relationships. That can understand each other and play well together.

And then you have the influence of factors of which you have no control, and AFL has more of them that any other sport that I know of. The prevalence of unpreventable injuries, who gets them and when, the fixture, the results of other games that influence your own position and outcomes, where you play, how many members your club has and what crowds you draw etc etc

There are so many factors that go into success and they are so contradictory and inconsistent, I can't see how anyone could see them as being anything other than random. You can name any factor in success and find a contradictory example from another success. I also think the margins between teams and coaches and players and clubs in most aspects of the game is relatively narrow. There aren't many secrets in football, and there is very little one person knows and another doesn't.

I understand it is a position that annoys people as they feel it is a slight on the people who have delivered our success, but it isn't at all. Having good people who are good at their jobs is a factor in success but you need the luck to select the right people and get the right mix there as well and then they need to be the right for for the players you have.

If anything, I think we should be more thankful for our success due to the chance involved. It doesn't happen often and it is bloody hard to find so we should enjoy it while it lasts and hope it comes again soon.

No it’s not annoying because of what you say re slighting people.

the fact that you seem to believe you are right on every issue and that your opinion somehow carries more value is really utterly tiresome.

it’s about leadership and culture, not just luck. Believing in luck is like believing in karma - people who get sick have somehow deserved that is the flip side of a luck argument.

leadership and culture is where teams succeed not just cattle. Damien is a better leader and people person than Scott and in developing this, together with culture, it has helped the team to succeed.

If leadership and culture weren’t important, it wouldn’t be mentioned by every ceo and every business person who manages staff.

but I’m sure you will answer re your 10 years of experience of doing something or some other comment which indirectly dilutes the experience all of us have in running our businesses and knowing what we know.

 

[seven]

Exactly! Which reminds me, I received a hot tip, North to win the flag. Put your house on it.

North are 501 to win.
So if i put $100,000 on them i win $50,100,000!
Thanks, be putting that bet on this afternoon.

Wonder what the poor people will be doing end of season? Ha!

 

[wayne]

We were the unluckiest club for 37 years.

We need to start a thread with all the luck we've had since the Cotchin draft.

Blues lose Kruezer cup, handing us Cotch
Teams overlook Rance, gifting him to us with our 2nd pick
Riewoldt is still there even after we downgraded our pick from 8 to 13 and Polak
Melbourne tank and leave us Martin
Vickery compo gives us Shai Bolton

 

[Giardiasis]

Where was the “End the luck farce” thread back in 2009?

 

[AngryAnt]

No it’s not annoying because of what you say re slighting people.

the fact that you seem to believe you are right on every issue and that your opinion somehow carries more value is really utterly tiresome.

it’s about leadership and culture, not just luck. Believing in luck is like believing in karma - people who get sick have somehow deserved that is the flip side of a luck argument.

leadership and culture is where teams succeed not just cattle. Damien is a better leader and people person than Scott and in developing this, together with culture, it has helped the team to succeed.

If leadership and culture weren’t important, it wouldn’t be mentioned by every ceo and every business person who manages staff.

but I’m sure you will answer re your 10 years of experience of doing something or some other comment which indirectly dilutes the experience all of us have in running our businesses and knowing what we know.

I can't think of any post where TBR says he believes he is always right. He gives his opinion, based on his experience, like we all do. I disagree with some of his opinions, that's fine.

To be honest I feel we are lucky to have someone who's actually been on the inside - even if we don't always agree with their analysis.

 

[TigerMasochist]

No, of course not, I'm certainly not suggesting it is as random as that.

But every club has the same information, the same talent identification tools, the same vision and stats, the same testing results, the same access to interview and by and large the top 50 draft picks each year are predictable and agreed on by all clubs, with only subtle variations. And yet the results vary wildly with no logical reason as to why. For every success or failure you can find reasons that are directly opposed by other successes and failures. Chance is the only explainable factor.

The thing is though you never really know if the draftee will actually turn into a player, let alone a good or great player and even if they do turn into a good or great player will it be enough to make you a successful team?

There's plenty of kids who were highly rated in the draft like Buckley, Riewoldt, Dangerfield for example who became great players but for whatever reason were unable to be part of a premiership side. No-one could possibly have predicted that when they drafted them.

I look at two kids I had something to do before they were drafted in Dustin and Josh Schache. They were both good players, but Josh was far ahead in other factors. If they had been in the same draft and you'd been asked to predict which of these guys will win his team three premierships and be considered one of the best players of all time then you'd have chosen Josh every single time.

Haaarrrggh! Lucky then that you're not recruiting for us TBR.

A Schache over a Dusty that'd be seriously farkin ugly.

 

[MD Jazz]

I look at two kids I had something to do before they were drafted in Dustin and Josh Schache. They were both good players, but Josh was far ahead in other factors. If they had been in the same draft and you'd been asked to predict which of these guys will win his team three premierships and be considered one of the best players of all time then you'd have chosen Josh every single time.

So Dusty succeeded despite you?

I never saw Schache play at junior level but I don't think I saw him play one game that suggested he was going to cut it at AFL level. And despite all the exposed form the bulldogs made a massive mistake drafting him. That was not luck. Same goes for us drafting Hampson. For the hawks drafting Vickery. For the Saints drafting Adam Pattinson. They all had exposed form and terminal flaws for AFL footballers. It isn't bad luck that they have not/did not succeed at their second clubs.

As for the draft, I agree with Ant that hard work/research etc provides a much better opportunity for success than throwing a dart at the board and letting fate decide.

For me luck makes up a small part when determining chances of success.

 

[taztiger4]

No, of course not, I'm certainly not suggesting it is as random as that.

But every club has the same information, the same talent identification tools, the same vision and stats, the same testing results, the same access to interview and by and large the top 50 draft picks each year are predictable and agreed on by all clubs, with only subtle variations. And yet the results vary wildly with no logical reason as to why. For every success or failure you can find reasons that are directly opposed by other successes and failures. Chance is the only explainable factor.

The thing is though you never really know if the draftee will actually turn into a player, let alone a good or great player and even if they do turn into a good or great player will it be enough to make you a successful team?

There's plenty of kids who were highly rated in the draft like Buckley, Riewoldt, Dangerfield for example who became great players but for whatever reason were unable to be part of a premiership side. No-one could possibly have predicted that when they drafted them.

I look at two kids I had something to do before they were drafted in Dustin and Josh Schache. They were both good players, but Josh was far ahead in other factors. If they had been in the same draft and you'd been asked to predict which of these guys will win his team three premierships and be considered one of the best players of all time then you'd have chosen Josh every single time.

I don't believe that all clubs do have the same tools.

I've sat in a few briefings with Matty Clarke, Frank & Blair & the software they use is bespoke & belongs to us only (that's probably a tautology) is my understanding.

I will also say that Blairs rating system & allocating points for numerous categories is also his own tool, yep others probably do a similar thing but how good is Blairs & how good are theirs ?

 

[bob]

I can't think of any post where TBR says he believes he is always right. He gives his opinion, based on his experience, like we all do. I disagree with some of his opinions, that's fine.

To be honest I feel we are lucky to have someone who's actually been on the inside - even if we don't always agree with their analysis.

You don’t have to say “hey I believe myself to be right” it’s all your other words and diluting other opinions that pretty much say you believe that anyway!

many of us are on the “inside” - we may simply not go on and on about it.

 

[bob]

I don't follow your logic there.

Why would anyone have an opinion they believed to be wrong? And then wouldn't they change their mind and again believe they were right?

And I certainly don't think my opinion carries more value, I'm just another bare bum in the shower.

Opinions aren’t facts thank goodness.