Redo the 2001 Draft - The Greatest of All

[the distributer]

Dane Swan is a very good player. No doubting that. But where was he from 2002-2005? Unlike Swan, Mitchell on the other hand has been good from the get go. Winning the rising star in his second season in 2003. Overall I would say Mitchell has been the better player and has sustained his dominance for longer periods then Swan. I'd say the last three years though Swan has had more of an impact.

Mitchell > Swan

Get ya hand off it Daryl.

 

[the distributer]

Ablett clearly no1

Judd 2

Swan 3

Then it gets hard.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Ablett clearly no1

Judd 2

Swan 3

Then it gets hard.

Would have Sam Mitchell, Jimmy Bartel, Nick Dal Santo, Luke Hodge, Luke Ball and Stevie J in the top 10.

Campbell Brown to round out the top 10 for me.

FWIW, Leigh Montagna not even close to top 10.

 

[Tragic sainter]

Would have Sam Mitchell, Jimmy Bartel, Nick Dal Santo, Luke Hodge, Luke Ball and Stevie J in the top 10.

Campbell Brown to round out the top 10 for me.

FWIW, Leigh Montagna not even close to top 10.

Campbell brown a better footballer than Leigh montagna? Not sure if serious...

 

[loki04]

1. Ablett
2. Judd
3. Swan
4. Hodge
5. Bartel
6. Johnson
7. Mitchell
8. Ball
9. Dal Santo
10. Lake
11. Kelly
12. Boyd
13. Bock
14. Rutten
15. Sandilands

 

[beta_condition]

Get ya hand off it Daryl.

It's not as black and white as you'd like to believe.

 

[the distributer]

It's not as black and white as you'd like to believe.

It's not s**t and piss either.

 

[Big Fresh]

1. Ablett
2. Judd
3. Mitchell
4. Swan
5. Bartel
6. Johnson
7. Dal Santo
8. Hodge
9. Sandilands
10. Montagna

 

[Yoda_]

Pick 18: Shane Harvey - 11 games
Pick 31: Joel Reynolds - 18 games
Pick 34: Simon O'Keefe - 0 games
Pick 47: Andrew Welsh - 162 games
Pick 50: Paul Salmon - 15 games
Pick 64: Daniel McCalister - 3 games

talk about royally F***ING up a draft

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Pick 18: Shane Harvey - 11 games
Pick 31: Joel Reynolds - 18 games
Pick 34: Simon O'Keefe - 0 games
Pick 47: Andrew Welsh - 162 games
Pick 50: Paul Salmon - 15 games
Pick 64: Daniel McCalister - 3 games

talk about royally F***ING up a draft

Daniel McAlister what a spud.

Had to give up his No. 4 for the Big Fish.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

OK smart ass Swan gets more
Kicks
Possessions
Marks
Goals
Behinds
Rebound 50s
Inside 50s
Brownlow votes
Contested Marks
Marks inside 50
Goal Assists
Bounces

Mitchell wins
Clearances
Hand Balls
Contested Possessions
Tackles

Holy s**t even I was suprised Swan leads Mitchell in so many areas. When Swan has 121 more goals and 26 less games it is quiet a gap for 2 players who both play midfield.

Come at me ...

Damn. You got me.

Swan > Mitchell


.

Don't concede so easily.

First of all, when comparing the careers of two players drafted at the same time - some stats (i.e. brownlow votes) should favour totals rather than averages. This is particularly the case when Swan has missed more games due to poor form early and due to indescretions/ill discipline later on. In this example, Mitchell has accumulated 170 BL votes and Swan 164. Not one of the reasons to favour Swan IMO.

Secondly, many of these stats are misleading, fail to capture the full story or are just plain wrong (e.g. Mitchell averages and totals more goal assists). One example of analysing in greater depth is that Dane Swan averages more possessions (1 more per game) but Sam Mitchell is a significantly better user in possession. This can be somewhat evidenced by their disposal efficiency numbers, with Sam Mitchell going at 73.7% in 2013 and Swan going at 63.6% (career disposal efficiency is not available as it was introduced later). That is more than 10% higher despite Mitchell getting a much higher proportion in contested situations and using his opposite far more often. Therefore, whilst Swan gets 1 more (typically uncontested) possession per game, Mitchell hits his intended target at least 2 more times per game. Edit: Looking back at 2012 tells a similar story - Mitchell @ 75.2% efficiency and Swan @ 67.3%.
Similarly, rebound 50's and inside 50's are just doubling (or in this case tripling) up. Why count the same possession again? Why is it more significant to kick uncontested sideways that happens to cross a painted line (i.e. rebound 50) than it is to get a contested possession in the middle of the ground? Rebound and inside 50's are examples of useless stats IMO as it is of no greater worth to get a possession that crosses those lines than it is to get a possession anywhere else on the ground. Bounces is another useless stat - Rhyce Shaw, Heath Shaw, David Rodan and Joel Bowden are all top 5 of all time - the point is, it is not a measure of quality.

Thirdly (and most importantly) stats are only stats and should be used to support assertions made from watching them play and knowledge of their respective games. In themselves, they are not the measuring stick. For example...

I have watched Swan hundreds of times and he is a brilliant player. He is super fit (i.e. repeat efforts) and deceptively quick, able to get to contest after contest after contest. As such he receives a lot of the footy from teammates (high uncontested ratio of possessions) and accumualtes big numbers (highest disposal average in the AFL) (he is still good on the inside as well BTW). He is an ungainly but OK (certainly not great) user of the footy (around average DE for midfielders) and can go forward to great effect (good number of goals for a mid). Due to his poorer use of the footy (compared to others such as Pendlebury) he avoids the first tag more often than he gets it (though he has had his fair share over the years).

By contrast, Mitchell is quite a slow player and a completely different mid. He is always at the bottom of packs getting the hardball (higher ratio of contested footy) and clearing it out (many more clearances). He is a better user of the footy (stats discussed above) with exceptional vision in close (and in traffic) and is truly dual sided by hand and foot. He is also more accountable for his opponent (more tackles). Mitchell has also copped the first tag nearly every week of his career due to his importance and superior use. He kicks far fewer goals and is poorer overhead (he almost never ventures forward as he too integral in the middle and if used elsewhere will go to HB where he can set up play with his elite skills and reading of the play).

Both have had brilliant careers and would be number 1 in just about every other draft. They are very different midfielders (making the comparison hard) and I don't think it is clear cut who is the better player. In truth, it probably doesn't matter.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Interestingly, Swan actually averages more possessions against Hawthorn than any other non expansion team despite being largely ineffectual in these encounters. I don't say this because Collingwood lost most of them (Beams was highly effective in a big loss Collingwood suffered to Hawthorn in 2012 for example) but due to having minimal impact on the play he was involved in. This is an example of why statistics do not tell the full story of how well someone plays. It also demonstrates Hawthorn's (and Hawthron is not alone) relative comfort in having Swan accumulate possession whereas Mitchell cops a hard tag basically every week. Mitchell's impact of contested footy/clearances/possessions is higher which is counterbalanced (to what extent is a matter of opinion) by Swan's greater scoreboard impact (in terms of goals kicked).

 

[democritus]

1. Ablett
2. Judd
3. Swan
4. Bartel
5. Mitchell
6. Hodge
7. Johnson
8. Lake
9. Sandilands
10. Dal Santo
11. Ball
12. Montagna
13. Boyd
14. Kelly
15. Rutten
16. Bock
17. Reilly
18. Hale
19. Brown
20. Jamar
21. Carrazzo (was initially drafted by geelong)

edit* missed Dal Santo completely!

 

[Hawkas1988]

I honestly find it surprising Bartel is rated above Mitchell hodge johnson alot in these threads. I can see him on par with them as he is a big game player but he hasn't really been a dominant player for awhile he is a bit of a floater these days. Surely cats supporters see Johnson as surpassing him now? Based on overall career output. I would say Bartel was huge in 2 years 07 08, huge in 11 final series good in most others and average in a cpl, johnson has seemed to be a top player since 07 every year practically without having the decrease of a bartel, would like to know cats supporters opinions on this??

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[democritus]

Brownlow, Norm Smith, 3 X Premierships, 2 x All Aus. I think he just nudges them out.

Whilst Mitchell and Johnson have maintained the rage, Hodge's last few years haven't been spectacular for a multitude of reasons. Sure, they all have very respectable accolades and come extremely well credentialed, however, even taking that into account I'd still take Bartel in his prime years. That said, it's a terribly difficult decision. A testament to how ridiculously good this draft was.

 

[Damon_3388]

Dane Swan is a very good player. No doubting that. But where was he from 2002-2005?

Developing at the same rate most young players do...

People forget that a player's true prime is usually between the ages 24-29. By this time, they've fully developed physically and mentally to reach their potential. Would mean that for guys in this draft with 1983-1984 birth dates, their prime would have been 2008-2012 or 2009-2013, which fits with Dane Swan's peak period. The whole "burst onto the scene, win a Brownlow in your third year" a la Chris Judd is the rare exception, not the rule, and is an unrealistic expectation for the vast majority of players drafted.

 

[Hot Pocket]

There is no proper way you can do this. So many guns and stars that would be number 1 in other drafts dont even make the top ten of this one.

I'm not doing this by needs, I'm doing this by best player/career achieved in the 11 years after it.

1) Chris Judd
2) Gary Ablett
3) Sam Mitchell
4) Dane Swan
5) Steve Johnson
6) Aaron Sandilands
7) James Bartel
8) Luke Hodge
9) Nick Dal Santo
10) Matthew Boyd
11) James Kelly
12) Luke Ball
13) Nathan Bock
14) Brian Lake
15) Ben Rutten
16) Quinten Lynch
17) Lewis Roberts-Thompson
18) Leigh Montagna
19) Jason Gram
20) Paul Medhurst
21) Mark Jamar
22) Brent Reilly
23) David Hale
24) Adam Schneider
25) Campbell Brown
26) Bret Thornton
27) David Rodan
28) Rick Ladson
29) Xavier Clarker
30) Mark Seaby
31) Jarrad Waite
32) Matt Maguire

I had no idea it ran this deep. I knew of the top 20 odd names in your list, had no idea it stretched that far down.

Only two questionable names in there I reckon.

 

[WWSD]

Developing at the same rate most young players do...

People forget that a player's true prime is usually between the ages 24-29. By this time, they've fully developed physically and mentally to reach their potential. Would mean that for guys in this draft with 1983-1984 birth dates, their prime would have been 2008-2012 or 2009-2013, which fits with Dane Swan's peak period. The whole "burst onto the scene, win a Brownlow in your third year" a la Chris Judd is the rare exception, not the rule, and is an unrealistic expectation for the vast majority of players drafted.

Perhaps your right. I like Dane Swan I've already said he's a very good player and he's arguably been the second best performing midfielder in the competition over the last 5-6 years behind Gary Ablett and all I stated before was that Mitchell started off his career better then what Swan did and he was consistent for longer and on that I rated Mitchell higher then Swan, but I doesn't mean that I don't rate Swan because I do he's an outstanding player who's become one of the best midfielders going around. Nothing wrong with either players you've listed there.

 

[Winter]

Pick 18: Shane Harvey - 11 games
Pick 31: Joel Reynolds - 18 games
Pick 34: Simon O'Keefe - 0 games
Pick 47: Andrew Welsh - 162 games
Pick 50: Paul Salmon - 15 games
Pick 64: Daniel McCalister - 3 games

talk about royally F***ING up a draft

I see your draft and raise you North Melbourne's:

Pick 7 - David Hale
Pick 14 - Ashley Watson
Pick 30 - Rod Crowe
Pick 54 - Ben Robbins
Pick 61 - Mick Martyn
Pick 80 - Hugh Foot

 

[Yoda_]

I see your draft and raise you North Melbourne's:

Pick 7 - David Hale
Pick 14 - Ashley Watson
Pick 30 - Rod Crowe
Pick 54 - Ben Robbins
Pick 61 - Mick Martyn
Pick 80 - Hugh Foot

We both royally ****** up huh?

 

[00Stinger]

Brownlow, Norm Smith, 3 X Premierships, 2 x All Aus. I think he just nudges them out.

Whilst Mitchell and Johnson have maintained the rage, Hodge's last few years haven't been spectacular for a multitude of reasons. Sure, they all have very respectable accolades and come extremely well credentialed, however, even taking that into account I'd still take Bartel in his prime years. That said, it's a terribly difficult decision. A testament to how ridiculously good this draft was.

The 3 premierships means sweet * all when comparing individual players on individual performances

 

[eaglespremiers]

The 3 premierships means sweet **** all when comparing individual players on individual performances

Martin Pike dislikes this post.

 

[HawkHeaven]

It's not s**t and piss either.

That is funny because that is what the Hawks usually do to Collingwood.

Add me to the Mitchell is better than Swan camp, and by a fair way.

 

[Topper Harley]

I honestly find it surprising Bartel is rated above Mitchell hodge johnson alot in these threads. I can see him on par with them as he is a big game player but he hasn't really been a dominant player for awhile he is a bit of a floater these days. Surely cats supporters see Johnson as surpassing him now? Based on overall career output. I would say Bartel was huge in 2 years 07 08, huge in 11 final series good in most others and average in a cpl, johnson has seemed to be a top player since 07 every year practically without having the decrease of a bartel, would like to know cats supporters opinions on this??

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Johnson is better now, Bartel for their respective careers.

 

[Hawkas1988]

Johnson is better now, Bartel for their respective careers.

So overall still Bartel ahead of him? I guess I don't watch every cats game and maybe johnson being clearly the better player now has clouded my judgement but he just seems to have been at a higher level for longer

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk