2005 and 2006 - Back to Back?

[grizzlym]

I'm a tad confused, you sound like a Hawthorn supporter but you're wearing Adelaide colours.

Disown the boy!

 

[ACTion Hawks]

Without going into all his roles, I am also doubtful of Pelch' recruiting record, but think it poor rather than absolutely shocking.

My rationale is to look at each pick and see if you would have picked different at the time:

2005

Ellis - highly touted and still may meet it. He has suffered his share of injury but shows a lot. My main worry is whether his physical attributes will withstand the rigours of the game

Dowler - this was a risky and in my view unnecessary pick. He was highly touted, but I would have preferred Ryder (who also would have met our ruck need at the time). Rumour was that they were worried that Ryder and Buddy were too similar (and neither Buddy or Roughy had made it at that stage). Understandable pick, but mistake in my view. Player development team maybe should take a fair proportion of the blame too.

Birchall - major win for the recruiting team. Struggling now, but played a big part in 08.

Bailey - reasonable pick, cruelled by injury. Still may come back, would be a fairytale if he does. C'mon BIG MAX!!!

Muston - personally disappointed they didn't stick with him. Worth the risk as could have been the X factor from junior reports. I would have kept him another year.

Tuck - agreed with the pick at the time for all reasons.

2006

Thorp - highly touted and had most of the attributes. Made to look worse as the Cats got Selwood the pick after (who every club was fearful of taking due to knee concerns). Understandable pick and not sure the recruiters can get blamed for this one.

Renouf - done well so far. Still very young for a ruck and hopefully will keep improving. Tick.

Morton - not lived up to expectations and must be on last life. This number pick is more of a lottery though. Not a tick, but not a major failure.

Kennedy - worthy pick and should be on the list. Would probably be in our top 22 if still here.

Moss - low pick who gave everything and just couldn't make it. Neither tick or failure here either.

One issue for these draftees is that if they did not establish themselves quickly then they were not in the team. I wonder how Roughy would have gone if selected two years later???

In judging Pelch, we should also look at later drafting and he has some definite ticks (Rioli and Stratton) and others still looking like they may well make it (especially with us going extra young). My only concern was that we appeared to spend nearly all of our lower and rookie picks on small runners, rather than possible Key Positions (which was becoming more apparent by the day that we needed).

We rolled the dice and lost a few in those two years, but not in such a terrible way as being touted by the OP

 

[Ordovician]

Haha I did acknowledge that it was a little slanted.

I really picked the wrong teams to compare to - I picked those ones on the basis that they're doing a lot of things right to be consistently top 4.

The other consideration is the amount of room in the best 22. Pelchen can be given props for adding another member to our best 22 in Hale (thus improving our list) yet he wasn't in North's best 22 for most of the eyar.

The bottom line is we had a good opportunity to set ourselves up for a long time and came away with a handful of players and none of them are in our best 5-10. Average performance.

A better comparison would have been when those teams had top draft pick and how they used tthem to get to the top.

For example:

St Kilda

2000 picks:

1 Riewoldt - star
2 Kosi - try hard disappointment
64 Gale - who?
75 Powell - who?
82 Wulf - - who?

2001 picks:

2 L Ball - ok player
5 X Clarke - less ok
13 N Del santo - almost a star
21 M Maguire - star
37 L Montagna - star
49 J Holihan - who?

2002 picks:

1 B Goddard - a real star
22 M Ferguson - who?
46 L Fisher - ok

Far higher picks with 1, 1, 2, & 5 but a far higher strike rate with the other picks in 2001 as well.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

West Coast is probably a good comparison. THey've had a massive raft of high draft picks in recent years. Might check out the hits and misses soon. They've got quite a few in their best 22, but it's not helping them too much!

 

[Chrissie90]

Excellent idea! How about straight after the draft, Chrissie tell us who she would have picked with our picks. She can pick the guy Pelch picks (unlikely) or anyone that went after that pick. We bookmark it and come back in 12-24 months time and see how she went. What do you say Chrissie90?

Good one. I am not saying that I am an expert in picking young players. That isnt my job. But if I was as bad at my job (or my staff are) I would expect to get sacked. Isnt that what happens??? The proof if Pelchans incompetence is the quality of the players he drafted given the huge opportunities he had.

I know you like to make excuses, say its bad luck or wasnt his role or he does other things ok - but his drafting has failed - and the club is weaker for it. People who talk about 08 conveniently forget that Pelch had very little impact in that. I dont think that we can risk keeping him while he tries to learn how to draft properly.

Anyway, do you have a logical point to make? Or does it just bother you that a girl can argue about footy better than you can?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I don't know why you're even bothering.

Guys, the simple fact is that every club has Draft busts....every club. And I've provided a list of just a few of them earleir in the thread.

If Pelchen had of pulled Thorp and Dowler out of nowhere then perhaps we could call for his head, but he didn't. He picked kids that were rated Top 10 picks by every club, and they couldn't cut the mustard.

Sooner or later the majority of AFL followers will realise that the pressures, the time, the application and the physical extremes required to play the game at the highest level will wear down quite a few of these highly fancied kids before they get to repay the faith.

 

[Chrissie90]

If Pelchen had of pulled Thorp and Dowler out of nowhere then perhaps we could call for his head, but he didn't. He picked kids that were rated Top 10 picks by every club, and they couldn't cut the mustard.

He pulled Dowler from a car wreck with a broken pelvis. He also didnt seem to read Thorps lengthy medical history - and he didnt put either of them (or more recently Peterson or Hooper) in front of a psychologist or he would have found out they did not have the temperament for footy.

Anyway we didnt even need more key forwards - or the 2 we drafted in 08 either for that matter

He did not do his due diligence. He should be sacked. Actually he should have been sacked a few years ago.

 

[Messenger]

He pulled Dowler from a car wreck with a broken pelvis. He also didnt seem to read Thorps lengthy medical history - and he didnt put either of them (or more recently Peterson or Hooper) in front of a psychologist or he would have found out they did not have the temperament for footy.

Anyway we didnt even need more key forwards - or the 2 we drafted in 08 either for that matter

He did not do his due diligence. He should be sacked. Actually he should have been sacked a few years ago.

But they did read Judd and Selwood's lengthy medical history.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

He pulled Dowler from a car wreck with a broken pelvis. He also didnt seem to read Thorps lengthy medical history - and he didnt put either of them (or more recently Peterson or Hooper) in front of a psychologist or he would have found out they did not have the temperament for footy.

Anyway we didnt even need more key forwards - or the 2 we drafted in 08 either for that matter

He did not do his due diligence. He should be sacked. Actually he should have been sacked a few years ago.

What's all this then?

You talk like you know this as fact, yet your suggestion is that Pelchen just picked a name out of a hat without doing any screening of personalities, physical attributes, temperament, etc.... You sure you want to stick with these comments? They are awfully over the top.


I also notice you've lost the 'my dad says' persona.
Interesting, to say the least.


Once again though, you've chosen to overlook the comments I made that recruiting is not as precise as anyone would like, only to state that Pelchen should be sacked.
Like a dog with a bone, you are.

 

[Chrissie90]

What's all this then?

You talk like you know this as fact, yet your suggestion is that Pelchen just picked a name out of a hat without doing any screening of personalities, physical attributes, temperament, etc.... You sure you want to stick with these comments? They are awfully over the top.


I also notice you've lost the 'my dad says' persona.
Interesting, to say the least.


Once again though, you've chosen to overlook the comments I made that recruiting is not as precise as anyone would like, only to state that Pelchen should be sacked.
Like a dog with a bone, you are.

You mods told me via PM to stop mentioning my dad or I would get thrown off the site... Not that mods and other posters have to stop mentioning him.

He and his friends still tell me what is going on. He actually thinks this site is pretty silly but I like it and post here anyway.

You have chosen to overlook my comments aboud drafting a guy after he was seriously injured in a car accident.

It is too easy to put everything down to luck. Freo used to have bad luck in recruiting - then they changed their recruiters and their luck has changed. Amazing. If clubs believed in luck, why are they putting more money and people into the area?

 

[Frankston Rover]

he didnt put either of them (or more recently Peterson or Hooper) in front of a psychologist or he would have found out they did not have the temperament for footy.

Goodness me, Peterson and Hooper cost us jack at the draft table and both were well known to have 'issues'.

Do you pick the best available and hope you can sort his head out or do you pick a less talented player?

If we'd recruited two duds with those low picks, would anyone really care?

I really don't think Pelchen does the role you think he does.

Don't forget he has a team that includes Wright and Bucky plus 10-20 other 'spies' both hired and voluntary (at least) AND once they are drafted that's his role done. He doesn't train them, he doesn't teach them to kick, the doesn't have a development role, he's not a dietitian or a confidant.

He's a LIST MANAGER.

He identifies deficiencies and tries to rectify them. He also manages the contracts of players to ensure we have salary cap space. That's it.

Put it this way, if he bought you a highly rated horse and told you he was a stayer and you took him to a trainer who trained him to sprint and the horse didn't win a race, whose fault is that? The bloke who recommended him or the bloke training him?

You might need your Dad's help on that one....

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

You mods told me via PM to stop mentioning my dad or I would get thrown off the site... Not that mods and other posters have to stop mentioning him.

I certainly never told you that, but for what it's worth, I don't really believe it's your 'dad' telling you this stuff or more to the point, that you are indeed of the age you portray.

He and his friends still tell me what is going on. He actually thinks this site is pretty silly but I like it and post here anyway.

Was that before or after he was banned?

You have chosen to overlook my comments aboud drafting a guy after he was seriously injured in a car accident.

His injury wasn't deemed to have been career ending at the time, and there was still plenty of interest in Dowler. He was always going to take time to recover but according to 'the Draft', we took Dowler in the 2005 draft because Hawthorn considered there were few key forwards in the next few drafts and we made key forwards a priority. (thanks DF and Emma Quayle)
But of course, you're stating that no psyche tests were given and that medical records were ignored?

It is too easy to put everything down to luck. Freo used to have bad luck in recruiting - then they changed their recruiters and their luck has changed. Amazing. If clubs believed in luck, why are they putting more money and people into the area?

Of course it's not luck, but completely disregarding the fact that not all players are going to make it regardless of beep tests, psyche tests, strength tests, parent screening etc is just as pointless.
A great deal of time and effort is put into recruiting, but it's still not an exact science.

For every Rioli who has plenty of questions hanging over his head but turns out to be a jet, there will be a player who is highly touted that just can't handle the pressure or the expectations of being an AFL player.

 

[grizzlym]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken Chrissie90, but I think you're confusing your 'mod drafts'. I don't believe any of the current mods have threatened you with explusion or gagging in any way.

 

[TAITA]

For every Rioli..........

Chrissie didn't think much of Rioli either GALON......

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8997221&postcount=8

My dad reckons the family ar eno good. He said that we had a Rioli a few years ago who was slow, unfit and no good - and that another Rioli footballer used to steal fridges in Darwin.

If they are a bad family, we shouldnt draft him coz they will bring him down...

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9518794&postcount=28

Anyway, arent all of the rioli family fatties? Maurice is fat and Dean is fat. I think the one at HFC a few years ago was also fat. If we get Cyril, he may go the same way if it is a genetic thing... I think it is important that our first pic is an athlete not a pizza and ice-cream eating slob. Maybe that is why they needed the fridges...

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11148529&postcount=49

You laugh now DM, but who knows how much he will eat over summer. I love junior boy and I hope he doesnt go like his family - but who can tell...

 

[TheFourPillars]

Chrissie didn't think much of Rioli either GALON......

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8997221&postcount=8



http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9518794&postcount=28



http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11148529&postcount=49

Astonishing reading about who is probably the most exciting player arguably on our list and that list includes Franklin

 

[arupist]

Chrissie didn't think much of Rioli either GALON......

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8997221&postcount=8



http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9518794&postcount=28



http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11148529&postcount=49

Ya just gotta laugh.

 

[TAITA]

This is for Chrissie and her fridge stealing, food eating, fat Rioli conspiracies.

......

 

[Ordovician]

TAITA that is the funniest thing I have ever read on this site!!!



Nevertheless, it does not exonerate Pelchen for the dismal performance of the Hawks in 05/06 drafts.

I just love the way the hordes of Pelchen apologists magically ascribe poor drafting to bad luck and good drafting to skill and diligent preparation. This shows extreme intellectual impoverishment.

If luck acccounts for Hawthorn's poor performance and Collingwood's sensational performance in 05/06, then surely we must have also been lucky in selecting Rioli and Stratton and thus these successes have nothing to do with our recruiters.

So how about some consistency in this debate?

If drafting is a mixture of luck and skill in indeterminate proportion then what part does skill play?

If all of the various recruiting departments have the similar skill levels and analysis capabilities then:

i. where does competitive advantage come from? as being marginally better is not a significant edge

ii. if there is little net difference then the different outcomes can only be a result of random fluctuations i.e. luck!

If you follow this line of reasoning we come to an interesting speculation:

Why not dispense with all of the waste of the recruiting division, use published analyses of draft talent and rankings, group them and then roll a dice?

Create a methodology of selecting picks from the next group of ranked available talent and roll a dice. For example if you had pick 6 you'd look at the next 4 or 5 highest rank candidates and roll the dice to select one of these. Whereas, if you had a higher pick say 40 then you'd take the next say 8 players because the ranked differentiation is not as sensitive as it is between the five 10 picks, and then randomly select one.

If this was done in 05 and 06 we would have had on average far better results!

At least with this methodogy you can honestly say that if your picks were bad then it was genuinely bad luck! It also has the advantages that we will eventually get an average draft performance over time as the numbers even out, and it is far cheaper!

If on the other hand we have employed more resources in recruiting than the average club (there is no such thing, as there are only rich clubs, a few in the middle and the poor clubs) then that investment should generate sufficient competitive advantage in the longer term (to acocampaigner for random variation) to make the Hawks recruiting at least as successful as the other top spending clubs.

Anyway, back to our job at hand which is to condemn Pelchen.

It is a basic principle of business that you reward good outcomes and punish bad outcomes. Pelchen took on the job its prestige and salary, to get results not to make a dog's breakfast of our opportunities.

People like Pelchen are not given large salaries, grandiosely gay titles, staff, signifigant budgets, and powerful ex-offico authorities merely to watch then piss away a once-in-a-decade opportunity to rebuild our team and set overselves up for a mini golden area.

By any reasonable standard he has totally failed in 05/06 and in any other real world business (unless he was the boss's son like the way Jamie Packer or Lachlan Murdoch got away with their little +$100M telecom disaster) he would be held accountable for his failings or at least the failings of those areas for which he was solely reasonsible.

All we want to see is some accountablity at Hawthorn.

If he is hanging on by the skin of his teeth and the board has granted him some leeway to see how the 08 and 09 drafts turn out before stamping his papers then that is fine my me. But being on the outside it is impossible to know these things.

However, if the hawks fail again next season then I would think that both Clarko and Pelch will be gone. If we have another miss the eight or wimp out loss in the first week of the finals style season and the board don't sack both of them then the board will be guilty of dereliction of duty.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Ordivician, I like your approach.

A successful pick requires a few things:

1. Player has talent
2. Player is the type of player required (KPP, or defender, or quick/skillful )
3. Player has the desired physical attributes (lack of injuries, adequate fitness base, etc)
4. Player has the right mental capabilities to deal with full time professional sportsman

This is probably where the Pelchan/recruitment team's input finishes.
The remainder:
5. Player's progress is not severely hampered by injury
6. Player is given opporunity to senior footy
7. Player's opportunities align with what they do best.


These 3 factors are up to the coaching staff.
Let's compare two first round picks: Cyril Rioli and Beau Dowler
Cyril:
1. Clear talent
2. We definitely needed a small crumbing play making forward
3. Did not appear so - other clubs overlooked on the basis of a lack of application.
4. If anything, Cyril's fitness was a little sub-par. Explosive pace but average endurance
5. No injuries in his first season, a full pre-season.
6. Cyril has never played for box hill
7. tick.

Success. Now Pelchan took a risk that other club's weren't willing to take. Adelaide were reportedly VERY keen, as too Essendon and I think both had picks before us.

Dowler:
1. Clear talent
2. Not sure if we really needed a KPF, unless there were plans for Buddy or Rough to play elsewhere. We still had Willo and Boyle at the time.
3. Beau had just been in a car accident.
4. Can't comment - I've got no idea of his mental composition.
5. Took a long long time to get his body right.
6. Was given senior time in many different positions, including ruck, forward, wing, hbf and KPD.
7. Beau was quite good at the fast lead, strong one-grab mark and kicking it straight through. When given the chance he did this well.

This is where it gets a bit dissappointing. It was a really low percentage selection with a very high draft pick. Having said that I firmly believe it would have been successful if we had played him where he should be played, but there wasn't really room with our big guys. So this is an all round disappointment. Poor selection and poor development.


There are two other factors that affect how Pelchan's draft picks are judged. 1) the other players available at the time (and how they've performed) and 2) How long it takes the player to play senior footy and impact games.

There really weren't any other small forwards in Cyril's draft that have gone on to bigger and better things, making his selection seem all the more perfect. Likewise he was impacting games immediately.

Dowler on the other hand, well, Paddy Ryder was drafted one pick later, and Mitch Clark was also available (although we got Bailey a few picks later).



Now the things I haven't included are those that are up to the player himself. Application to the task, performing at a high level at box hill, etc.

 

[Chrissie90]

I really don't think Pelchen does the role you think he does.

Don't forget he has a team that includes Wright and Bucky plus 10-20 other 'spies' both hired and voluntary (at least) AND once they are drafted that's his role done.

I dont think he does either - even tho all the recruiting people work for him and therefore its his responsibility.

If Pelch isnt good at recruiting, it is his job to find people that are - and he hasnt. Its sad that you defend a guy that has done so much damage to our club.

I am told we did better under Bucky when we got Rough, Lewis, Buddy, Hodge, Mitchell, Brown and co. Even Bucky found Stratton in Perth and I think Bucky used to go to the NT - so he probably found Cyril as well. We would probably have done better if Bucky stayed in charge of recruiting.

 

[TAITA]

......and I think Bucky used to go to the NT - so he probably found Cyril as well.

Does anyone want to tell her?

 

[Roddy27]

Does anyone want to tell her?

Nup. Just wait... just see if she realises or not...

 

[market]

Chrissie's trolling is salivating at the moment.....

release Hodgepodge....

 

[eldorado]

How tiresome is this?

I think it's time to make Chrissie our list manager and send her...

BACK TO THE FUTURE!!!

 

[illnino]

Chrissie didn't think much of Rioli either GALON......

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8997221&postcount=8



http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9518794&postcount=28



http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11148529&postcount=49

Pure, pure, 100% pristine gold

There are so many variables in this argument, I dare say it's one of the hardest positions to accurately judge someone in, from a sporting standpoint.

After reading everyone's analysis' and thoughts on the subject, I'm still willing to give the Pelchinator another couple of years before I'd even think of giving him the flick. We'll see what the HFC does in due time.

Bring on the draft already!