Our first picks from 2009 to 2012 were 32 then 24 then 25 then 24. So on the surface in those 4 years we traded away our first pick.
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 11
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 10 Winner: Bulldog rick
-
Where are St Kilda at?
- Thread starter MisterMarcus
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Our first picks from 2009 to 2012 were 32 then 24 then 25 then 24. So on the surface in those 4 years we traded away our first pick.
2010 and 2011 were the compromised drafts.
2010 1st pick was pick 24, St Kilda made no trades.
2011 1st pick was pick 20, traded down five spots for Saad and Milera. I'm fairly confident we would have picked Ross at 20 anyway.
Certainly in 2012 we at one stage had picks 12 & 13, which under an absolutely hindsight best case scenario could have been ... Brodie Grundy and either Kristian Jaksch or Tim Broomhead. The convoluted trades from 2012 was ultimately:
Pick 12, pick 13, pick 36, pick 55 and Jamie Cripps for Tom Lee, Tom Hickey, Trent Dennis-Lane, pick 24 (Wright), pick 25 (White), pick 40 (Murdoch) and pick 43 (Saunders).
Considering Murdoch would have been available at pick 36 you can cancel them out. So think of having Grundy & Jaksch instead of Wright, Lee, Hickey, White & Saunders, and possible drafting a Membrey who we ended up with anyway.
We didn't nail the 2012 draft to be sure, but I'm not sure if it was possible to.
We certainly make a massive error in 2009 by trading pick 16 for Andrew Lovett, using a pick that could have been used on Nat Fyfe.
2010 1st pick was pick 24, St Kilda made no trades.
2011 1st pick was pick 20, traded down five spots for Saad and Milera. I'm fairly confident we would have picked Ross at 20 anyway.
Certainly in 2012 we at one stage had picks 12 & 13, which under an absolutely hindsight best case scenario could have been ... Brodie Grundy and either Kristian Jaksch or Tim Broomhead. The convoluted trades from 2012 was ultimately:
Pick 12, pick 13, pick 36, pick 55 and Jamie Cripps for Tom Lee, Tom Hickey, Trent Dennis-Lane, pick 24 (Wright), pick 25 (White), pick 40 (Murdoch) and pick 43 (Saunders).
Considering Murdoch would have been available at pick 36 you can cancel them out. So think of having Grundy & Jaksch instead of Wright, Lee, Hickey, White & Saunders, and possible drafting a Membrey who we ended up with anyway.
We didn't nail the 2012 draft to be sure, but I'm not sure if it was possible to.
We certainly make a massive error in 2009 by trading pick 16 for Andrew Lovett, using a pick that could have been used on Nat Fyfe.
In 09 we had 16, in 10 we had 24, in 11 we had 20 and in 12 we ended up with 12 and 13. The only year we actually used the lowest pick we had was 2010, which is why I said "on the surface" we traded the rest away. But effectively we traded 4 of our 5 "first round" picks. It does not matter how you try and rationalise it - who we would have/could have got......it is about the mentality of the club in doing the trading. Pick 16 for Lovett is a prime example of that....not because of what happened with Lovett but because Saints felt they needed one more gap filler at the expense of youth - and on your rationale could have had Nat Fyfe.
I'd hardly describe Andrew Lovett as a gap filler. On the other hand we needed KPDs at last year's draft, so they was a gap that needed to be filled...
I just don't know if the judgments are that bad even in retrospect except for the entire 2009 draft. But if one is fair and judges them by the best information available at time, then it becomes even less clear.
On the other hand, I'm very strong on the fact that mature players were brought in and cost young players game was very costly. Tom Lynch filled a position of long suffered need, and he was overlooked in favour of a bloke who was not up to it. The kids we had should have been played, and that was true for the entirety of the Ross Lyon era.
I just don't know if the judgments are that bad even in retrospect except for the entire 2009 draft. But if one is fair and judges them by the best information available at time, then it becomes even less clear.
On the other hand, I'm very strong on the fact that mature players were brought in and cost young players game was very costly. Tom Lynch filled a position of long suffered need, and he was overlooked in favour of a bloke who was not up to it. The kids we had should have been played, and that was true for the entirety of the Ross Lyon era.
As I say, for me , it is not so much about the results achieved but the prevailing mentality at the club between 09 and 12. And that was youth in the draft were a second priority to mature players.
Falchoon
Brownlow Medallist
- Feb 15, 2002
- 29,574
- 10,761
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Bluestar Airlines, Anacott Steel
again with the less than insightful database dump when someone questions the insightfulness of your data dumps
14,000 games? really? we're using data from 1950 to call a trend in 2015? go Melbourne!!! Seriously, changes in professionalism, length of career, training methods, injury management, recovery management etc render that data irrelevant. Something like only 7 of the top 100 players in games played didn't play in the 1980's forward, yes there are now more games per year, but players quite simply didn't play on their decline as much as they do now.
- In football terms 34 < 24
The bigfooty equivalent of taking your bat and ball and going home.
And I have demonstrated that sufficient youth was acquired through the draft, then not played.
You silly blind arrogant flog campaigner.
Do you think I started looking at this yesterday?
A mature physique conveys a physical advantage in 2015 just as it did in 1915. Side A v Side B. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that.
But here, just for you, are the figures since 1985.
\< 0.5|1656|849|791|16|51.75
\0.5 - 1|1393|760|623|10|54.92
\1 - 1.5|1062|615|438|9|58.33
\1.5 - 2|685|447|233|5|65.62
\2 - 2.5|383|257|123|3|67.49
\2.5 - 3|194|131|60|3|68.30
\3+|131|105|25|1|80.53
\All|5504|3164|2293|47|57.91
These are the top 42 age differences between two teams. Note that the instances span almost the entire history of the VFL/AFL. Note also there is not a single loss among them.
\+5.51|2013|1|Sy|W|GWS
\+4.86|1909|10|Ca|W|Un
\+4.82|2011|20|Ge|W|GC
\+4.79|1911|4|Ca|W|Un
\+4.79|1908|18|Ca|W|Un
\+4.77|1911|15|Ca|W|St
\+4.73|2015|12|NM|W|GWS
\+4.73|2013|8|Ha|W|GWS
\+4.66|1989|18|Br|W|NM
\+4.60|2013|20|Fr|W|GWS
\+4.56|2014|17|Fr|W|GWS
\+4.52|1909|16|Co|D|Un
\+4.51|2013|11|Ge|W|GWS
\+4.51|2013|3|St|W|GWS
\+4.46|1912|8|Me|W|Ri
\+4.41|1945|8|Fi|W|Co
\+4.37|2005|13|PA|W|Ha
\+4.35|1904|4|Co|W|Fi
\+4.32|1912|7|Ca|W|Ri
\+4.29|2011|10|Ge|W|GC
\+4.23|1989|17|Ha|W|NM
\+4.22|1910|8|Ca|W|Ri
\+4.21|1922|1|Ri|W|Co
\+4.20|1914|17|Fi|W|Un
\+4.19|1913|5|Ca|W|Un
\+4.19|1910|6|Ca|W|Un
\+4.19|1945|2|Sy|W|Co
\+4.16|1945|9|Fi|W|Me
\+4.12|1914|14|Co|W|Un
\+4.10|2011|19|Ge|W|Me
\+4.10|1989|22|Sy|W|NM
\+4.08|1911|17|Me|W|Un
\+4.04|1945|8|Sy|W|Me
\+4.03|1910|15|Ca|W|Un
\+4.02|2013|2|Sy|W|GC
\+4.01|1923|2|Es|W|Co
\+4.00|2014|18|Ge|W|GWS
\+3.98|1911|8|Me|W|Un
\+3.94|1911|16|Co|W|Un
\+3.94|1990|5|Ha|W|NM
\+3.93|1924|8|Ri|W|Co
\+3.91|2012|17|Fr|W|GWS
Enjoy your rebuild.
Last edited:
Falchoon
Brownlow Medallist
- Feb 15, 2002
- 29,574
- 10,761
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Bluestar Airlines, Anacott Steel
stay classy
Physical advantage tops out at about 28, it's downhill after that. A mature head might extend that more.
so the question is where does this physical advantage start and stop, I refuse to believe a 34 year old has a physical advantage over a 26 year old
I wouldn't question the outriders, that's just another silly data dump
ta, best of luck in winning a final
- Thread starter
- #735
Rack up another win, pretty comprehensive against a team regarded as being around the same level.
Arguably more impressive than the 6 wins is the percentage. 91% for a so-called "straggler" is enormously heartening for Saints fans.
Arguably more impressive than the 6 wins is the percentage. 91% for a so-called "straggler" is enormously heartening for Saints fans.
You're right, but one thing which is super-positive is that there are already potentially A grade teenagers who we have drafted in the last 2 years who will develop further over the next few years to almost directly replace them...
Dempster - no replacement (the exception!)
Montagna - Billings (19yo)
Riewoldt - McCartin (19yo)
Fisher - Goddard (18yo)
Schneider - Lonie (18yo)
And that doesn't even include other talents like McKenzie (19), Acres (19), Sinclair (20), Dunstan (20) all of whom have already showed something (first two) or plenty (last two) at AFL level and are teenagers or started the calendar year as such.
Really the major needs are for another potentially A grade tall defender, medium defender, and a couple more quality ball using mids.
Especially when Jake Niall wrote in the age this morning Melbourne were better placed going forward than us.
FWIW I happen to agree with Niall, but it's conditional on turning the culture around at Melbourne, which Roos hasn't been able to do in two short years. Currently their senior players are able to get up for the odd game here and there, but not week to week. They were downright dysfunctional for much of today.
St.Kilda on the other hand has a buzz about the place, lots of positive energy and is performing far closer to potential.
Kinda like when Grant Thomas claimed St.Kilda was the better side after going down to Richmond in 2003 and got panned for it, he doesn't have to be proven right straight away.
I agree that we'd love to get Parish, though we have probably won too many games to get him... perhaps Mav's brother traded from Freo this year or next? Having said all that, I can see Joey going on for a few years yet - an incredibly durable and consistent performer who since 2007 he has averaged >20 games/season and 22-28 disposals, 3-6 tackles per game with no drop-offs. From the look of it he remains extremely motivated - is still only 31yo - could play on until the end of 2019, when he will be 35 IMO - likely will get to 300 games, maybe even 350...
You're entitled to your opinion that's fine. I'd definately disagree with you. Considering we've already gone past them, and think when you look across both teams we're got better younger players in more positions on the ground, I think we'll be playing finals before them.
It's been an exciting year for the Saints, but the club are not getting ahead of themselves. It's not about how many wins we get this year or next. We will go to the draft again this year and add more top end talent. We won't be going after FA's and look for immediate improvement. We are patient.
It's possible, Melbourne could be rooted for the longer term. Suspect we'll see Watts traded out this year if they can find a taker. Never been a basher but his lack of urgency is poison to a young team.
St.Kilda seems to have more handy flanker types whereas Melbourne's probably better served in the engine room. But St.Kilda might appeal more to free agents/players looking for a trade. Melbourne's traded-ins were poor as a group today IMO.
We'll see I guess. Niall does cite the opinions of unnamed AFL recruiters in support.
[QUOTE="Ron The Bear, post: 39845432, member: 27506]
St.Kilda seems to have more handy flanker types whereas Melbourne's probably better served in the engine room. But St.Kilda might appeal more to free agents/players looking for a trade.[/QUOTE]
St.Kilda seems to have more handy flanker types whereas Melbourne's probably better served in the engine room. But St.Kilda might appeal more to free agents/players looking for a trade.[/QUOTE]
TheLastEmperor
Cancelled
- Sep 10, 2009
- 8,400
- 7,721
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Melbourne certainly have more midfield depth especially when you add Petracca however Billings, Ross and Acres will become longterm mids and didn't play today.
Suspect Jones/Tyson/Viney/Brayshaw/Petracca will prove better than Armitage/Steven/Dunstan?/Weller?/?
Add billings and Sinclair to that list. Just to compare.
Armitage and Jones would be on par.
Steven > Tyson
Viney slightly ahead of Dunstan.
Billings > Brayshaw
sonnywalters
Cancelled
I really appreciate your stats on this.
Very comprehensive stuff.
I would add to your argument that it isn't 'age' that is the factor but 'good players.'
1. Good players are (much) more likely to survive on lists and play more games.
2. Therefore older lists are more likely to have more good players
Exceptions - Look at sides like the current Blues and Norf - old but not good.
That indicates the club has made poor decisions on certain players and over-rated their lists. i.e they have let too many ordinary players get up to 100-200 games.
So what I am saying here is if a list manager aims just to hit a certain age/game profile, this is no guarantee of success if you do this at the expense of good decision making on each individual player.
Norf are a classic example of this.
Last edited:
Thought Viney gave Steven a solid beating today.
Dunstan I'm not sold on, doesn't seem to be the most team-oriented player.
Billing I've probably sold short, would have him third in the pecking order.
Sinclair I think of as a flanker at this stage, could graduate to midfield.
Seb Ross as mentioned by another poster, don't rate. His disposal when I last watched him closely was D grade.
Acres haven't seen much of, vigorous type and good size but seen little of the skills some have attributed to him.
Was about to add Vince to Melbourne's mix, but he turns 30 this year. Had an excellent season, but his career has slipped away.
Just early opinions; I've never claimed to be a good judge of young talent.
Cheers. Was a bit rude to one of your fellow posters, but it tends to happen when posting without bias and getting dismissed as a muppet.
Yes that is spot on. Richmond for example hasn't had an old side for many years because we haven't had enough players good enough to graduate to veteran status.
When old sides fail, old players get chopped. Carlton aren't old like North or Hawthorn, but heads are going to roll there because they've very clearly come to the end of the road. North I believe has/had the ability to be a top side but is missing some factor X that I can't identify. Hardness, maybe. They're at the last chance saloon and have a good run home. Good enough to do some damage in finals, but I suspect they'll slip up somewhere as they've tended to do all along. They're right up with Hawthorn, Freo and Sydney as the oldest teams in the comp, with around a year of difference back to Geelong in 5th. Unless they win a couple of finals there'll be significant change there, too.
It's obviously not the be-all and end-all. No single figure can possibly represent a football team comprehensively. You can tell a lot from it, but you'd be insane to allow it to drive team selection. Various people post stuff like "Richmond should bring back Bartlett, then they'll be a good team", but that's a wilful/ignorant distortion of the data.
Hardwick for example has a 38% win rate from 92 games when younger than the opposition, and 84% from 32 games when older. Richmond is a team at the crossroads, at the point where it is about to regularly be expected to win. Fail to produce and we'll be forced to make list changes. But it's also exciting to think that two or three good trades/free agents could take us the next step.
Last edited:
If I was to pick the most team orientated of all the kids, I would choose Dunstan. Why did you come to that conclusion?
Watched him ignore handball options plenty of times in favour of kicking under duress. Played a good defensive game on Cotchin last week, so maybe this is being corrected. You'd know his game better than I do.
- Status
