I think you have to look more in-depth at recent drafts to understand why that is. Firstly talls have been taken most of time at pick 1, which take longer to develop. Secondly it’s a lot easier to be all Australian as a medium size player than it is a tall. Fewer spots available for talls, especially after you take buddy into account. The last point is the interesting one and that is the game has changed and talls have to be very mobile as team defences are strangling young key forwards who aren’t agile and mobile enough. If new rules come into play this may all change.
My opinion about the hit and miss of the draft is that every year clubs and recruiters get smarter. Over the last 10-15 years clubs have been refining there talent spotting and identification. Each year they have another draft to look back at and see which players succeeded and failed and what they got right and wrong. It’s like another test they get to learn from. I’m more optimistic than many about clubs drafting abilities today.
On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app
I agree there has been improvement in drafting but I’m not sure it’s as readily seen with pick 1 as that had generally been more obvious. Go back a decade to Gibbs and Murphy drafts - while they may not be the “best” in those drafts, they are easily in the top 3-4. It’s hard to argue we stuffed them up. There’s been an enormous improvement in in the mid to late first round drafting though, I agree.
It’s a good point re the nature of the players taken at 1 but even if we just look at midfielders in the last 10-12 years, it’s Murphy, Gibbs, Whitfield, Scully, swallow. Not exactly a murderers row when compared to others available in those drafts. Gibbs arguably the only one who has reached genuinely elite status over his career.
I actually think the biggest argument against relying on drafting history is that GWS and GWS skewed things a bit with the academy players and their willingness to draft for need. It doesn’t necessarily give an accurate picture of the draft.



