At the moment my maths class (I'm the teacher!) are looking at who has the best results from the draft since 1986. The limit is through to 2000, as post 2000 the requirements for "being successful" can't be met. Basically its a tally of those players drafted who have played 50 or more games, and those who have played 100+ games. I know there are a few statistical variables that won't be considered in this process, but I reckon the results will be interesting. Will post the final results when they come to hand.
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 14
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 13 Winner: Boyd oh Boyd
Draft History
- Thread starter stevo10
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Event Horizon
Brownlow Medallist
Veteran
10k Posts
North Melbourne - 2014 Daw, Black, Gibson Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2013 Daw, Black and Gibson Player Sponsorship
North Melbourne - North 2012 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2011 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2010 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2009 Player Sponsor
I would start from 1993 if I was you, as before that the rules were different and the draft wasn't really what we know today...
- Thread starter
- #3
OK there is a slight problem with the afl stats as they were only updated in JAn 2002, which means some of the players recruited in 99, 00 will not have come up in the figures. Anyhow doesn't matter as it applies to all teams.
Team 50 games 100+ games
Richmond 17 12
Melbourne 13 13
Bulldogs 15 9
St. Kilda 19 9
Sydney 21 7
West Coast # 12 18
Adelaide # 12 4
Brisbane 27 13
Geelong 18 10
Carlton 12 12
Nth. Melb 10 8
Port Adelaide# 20 3
Collingwood 17 7
Essendon 18 14
Freemantle # 11 4
# Entered the League post 86 (and may have had extra picks)
What do these stats show? Probably not much if you consider the figures Richmond have thrown up. However looking at West Coast is interesting as they had similar success to us in the 90's and they seem to have done really well.
Brisbane from around 92 onwards really did well. When did Clayton go there as recruiter? Does it also mean it takes around 8 years to build a premiership team?
All in all most teams recruited well around 5 or so years before they experienced some success.
Our stats are interesting in that we are pretty ****house in the recruiting (via the draft) of long term prospects at the club.
Or do we just have a more cut throat attitude and turn over our list more readily?
Our u19's of the 80's and 90's were such a great breeding ground for our champions (well done denis) that maybe the emphasis on drafting was not as great. Maybe we are seeing now the effects as we slip down the ladder of less than average recruiting of long term prospects during the late 90's?
If anyone else wants to crunch the numbers a bit more and throw up a few theories I'd like to hear them.
Team 50 games 100+ games
Richmond 17 12
Melbourne 13 13
Bulldogs 15 9
St. Kilda 19 9
Sydney 21 7
West Coast # 12 18
Adelaide # 12 4
Brisbane 27 13
Geelong 18 10
Carlton 12 12
Nth. Melb 10 8
Port Adelaide# 20 3
Collingwood 17 7
Essendon 18 14
Freemantle # 11 4
# Entered the League post 86 (and may have had extra picks)
What do these stats show? Probably not much if you consider the figures Richmond have thrown up. However looking at West Coast is interesting as they had similar success to us in the 90's and they seem to have done really well.
Brisbane from around 92 onwards really did well. When did Clayton go there as recruiter? Does it also mean it takes around 8 years to build a premiership team?
All in all most teams recruited well around 5 or so years before they experienced some success.
Our stats are interesting in that we are pretty ****house in the recruiting (via the draft) of long term prospects at the club.
Or do we just have a more cut throat attitude and turn over our list more readily?
Our u19's of the 80's and 90's were such a great breeding ground for our champions (well done denis) that maybe the emphasis on drafting was not as great. Maybe we are seeing now the effects as we slip down the ladder of less than average recruiting of long term prospects during the late 90's?
If anyone else wants to crunch the numbers a bit more and throw up a few theories I'd like to hear them.
Not sure how much this really shows as we basically came last in your analysis!
Deni$ did have a penchant for recycling players and a reputation for making solid players out of rejects from other clubs (witness Fridge, Pike, Scott, Spider, Sav among many more). But his claim to fame IMHO is his work in the U19 where he built the foundation of our premiership glory, most of the premiership team played under him in the U19s, Crocker, Fairley, Freddy Allison, Carey, Stevo, Sholl, Corey to name a few. Deni$ was never an active participant in the drafts and frequently gave away good draft picks for established players.
Deano seems the opposite. He is building the team through the draft. This is the only way to go I reckon. I think Deni$ will struggle for success at the Baggers without the old U19 system and relying mostly on recycling.
But Deni$ did find Scott Welsh, Pickett, Makepeace, Harvs, etc through middle to late draft picks. But in a way I put this down to luck more than anything. If you keep using the draft and have a strong club culture you have to get lucky at some point.
My two cents!
Deni$ did have a penchant for recycling players and a reputation for making solid players out of rejects from other clubs (witness Fridge, Pike, Scott, Spider, Sav among many more). But his claim to fame IMHO is his work in the U19 where he built the foundation of our premiership glory, most of the premiership team played under him in the U19s, Crocker, Fairley, Freddy Allison, Carey, Stevo, Sholl, Corey to name a few. Deni$ was never an active participant in the drafts and frequently gave away good draft picks for established players.
Deano seems the opposite. He is building the team through the draft. This is the only way to go I reckon. I think Deni$ will struggle for success at the Baggers without the old U19 system and relying mostly on recycling.
But Deni$ did find Scott Welsh, Pickett, Makepeace, Harvs, etc through middle to late draft picks. But in a way I put this down to luck more than anything. If you keep using the draft and have a strong club culture you have to get lucky at some point.
My two cents!
Sustained success between 1993 and 2002 has stopped us from having the top-line draft choices just about every other club has had through having poor years. We have had to trade to get those picks, also meaning other players have been stopped from reaching 50 or 100 games with us.
Also, your research did not mention how many draft picks each club had over the nominated period. I would have thought this would be possibly the first quantifiable statistic - and the easiest - to measure success... 50 or 100 gamers as a percentage of players drafted.
- Moderator
- #6
Basically what he said. There are some key variables that really **** with the result also:
1) Zoning was still in place up to 1991/2
2) Extraordinary factors-
-Brisbane and Sydney concessions - eg - they shared the first
10 picks of draft in 1992
-Introduction of West Coast, Freo, Adelaide and Port also
meant other teams offloaded aging players to secure
unusually good draft picks - eg - West Coast for rid of Tony
Godden (superstar that he was) and drafted a 16yo David
Wirrpunda..
I think the club could say they did sometimes drafted poorly, we had several early picks in the early 90s and some reasonable ones in 97/98 and didn't do all that much with some of them.
Similar threads
