or cam raynorDustin Martin thread....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
or cam raynorDustin Martin thread....
It's all in the judgement Ferris. Either a recruiter has good judgement or he doesn't. What goes into that judgement is a million pieces of data, but what the computer(brain) spits out after the data is Judgement.
There are good judges and bad judges.
SOS is a good judge in 2 areas of life.
Conversely, Shane Rogers and Geoff Edelsten respectively are poor judges in those two areas.
OK, I have a HUGE q for the draft watchers.
What are the key differences between what a kid does at u18 level vs what you think they will do at AFL level? How do you project talent?
I tend to be an output-focused guy. If a player's main job is to get the ball, then I look for the guys that can get the ball. I don't care if a guy can run like the wind and do the extra-ordinary. Coz unless he's actually doing it on a regular basis, then who cares? Someone like Gary Rohan looks amazing on paper, but (injuries aside) has not been very effective at AFL level in my eyes. Because of my biases, I tend to overvalue guys that end up vanilla (not Sam Walsh style) at AFL level.
Deven Robertson is a great example. Ok, his kicking is a bit messy and he lacks x-factor. But if it was that bad, how was he voted the best kid at the champs? Sam Philp is the opposite, he didn't even make the champs, but he's blistering quick. And he got picked earlier. This is not about drafting Philp vs Robertson, but these two are almost the perfect example of differing output vs characteristics prospects. I am only using these guys for illustrative purposes.
I get a few things like
I guess some kids get the ball 20 times a match at u18 but end up getting 30 at AFL level. Or vice versa. I mean Pat Kerr was u18 AA FF, was drafted late and is now delisted. Harry kicked a couple of goals here and there at junior level but was tall, athletic and could mark. He was drafted early and is looking like a serious AFL player in the making.
- A ball butcher will probably always be a ball butcher
- Sometimes a short guy is good at underage level, but just won't make it against taller, stronger opposition
- Lack of fitness/endurance can be fixed - but having said that the junior elite runners end up as the AFL's elite runners
- A skinny guy can get stronger
- Some kids are still growing
- A late convert to footy will likely have more development
- You may draft a kid to play a different position (therefore you look at attributes more than output)
- Leadership, off-field and interviews also impact on where a kid gets drafted and how he fares at AFL level
I mostly look at stats and highlights, so I can't really get a true feel for a what a player will/can become. Please tell me, how do you assess draft prospects and work out which ones will make it at AFL level and which ones won't?
Zac Williams is no chance. A local player from NSW and absolutely loves the club.
GWS sound very confident on Whitfield too. Don't think his contract is going to drag out like Coniglio's.
It's a good thing we've drafted our stars Exciting times ahead
Yeah, fair enough.
I analyse companies for a living. It kind of feels the same kind of process.
It's lots of data, ending in a valuation. It's equal parts art and science. Well, it's starts off mostly science (data, formulas). But at some stage you have to make judgements. And this is based mostly on experience, but partly gut feel. The really good analysts are right more than wrong; it might appear they are plucking a number out of thin air, but a reliable gut is a real thing and an invaluable skill. And not just something you get from drinking lots of kombucha....*shudders, ugh, kombucha*
It's the same with talent spotting. Two people can watch the same player and come to difference conclusions/estimates of how they end up. Hopefully your club staff have the better talent-spotting talent.
After analysing stocks for 15 years I use a lot of formulas, but also a lot of intuition. I can see things that many others can't. Of course I also miss some things that some others don't. But I teach people 'Here are some basic rules to follow. And here are some warnings signs to avoid'. It doesn't work every time, but it's a good basis. I guess I was hoping for some similar rules/guidelines for underage footballers. I don't have the eye for talent that other people do, but was interested in some pearls of wisdom from those that do....
Looking forward to some fascinating responses to this post.
Someone who watches every game (or close to it) over a period of time would likely be judging within an entire cohort and comparing players directly to others (that's going to provide different learnings than someone who just looks at a player in isolation) and based on development over time (where improvement potentially means more than raw output). I think that's always going to provide better insight into a player than someone who only has limited viewing to go off and has to make a "gut" judgement based on a game or two.
For me, I'll always give more credence to someone who can say "I've watched this group for the last 24 months and here are my overall impressions of these players" than I will to someone who can only say "I watched this game on the weekend and Player X is going to be a jet".
Form and development over time wins out.
Someone who watches every game (or close to it) over a period of time would likely be judging within an entire cohort and comparing players directly to others (that's going to provide different learnings than someone who just looks at a player in isolation) and based on development over time (where improvement potentially means more than raw output). I think that's always going to provide better insight into a player than someone who only has limited viewing to go off and has to make a "gut" judgement based on a game or two.
For me, I'll always give more credence to someone who can say "I've watched this group for the last 24 months and here are my overall impressions of these players" than I will to someone who can only say "I watched this game on the weekend and Player X is going to be a jet".
Form and development over time wins out.
Agree - both ZWilliams and Whitfield are no chance. I’m confident we already have the talent at our club. Go hard again on Papley and continue to add value role players (e.g., Newnes).Zac Williams is no chance. A local player from NSW and absolutely loves the club.
GWS sound very confident on Whitfield too. Don't think his contract is going to drag out like Coniglio's.
It's a good thing we've drafted our stars Exciting times ahead
It’s been interesting to read people’s thoughts on our recruitment of Philp over Robertson. I back the recruiters in, although I was big on team Robertson.
What I think people are missing is. We traded pick 22 and pick 55 for Philp, so when assessing Philp vs Robertson or whoever was still available, you need to factor in, it’s Philp vs Robertson and 55 or who we could have got, if we packaged 55 with the pick we used in the 40s.
Do we really need another one paced inside mid with ok at best foot skills?
Bennelong, Perpetual, Hyperion,,, keen to know who for ?Looking forward to some fascinating responses to this post.
Someone who watches every game (or close to it) over a period of time would likely be judging within an entire cohort and comparing players directly to others (that's going to provide different learnings than someone who just looks at a player in isolation) and based on development over time (where improvement potentially means more than raw output). I think that's always going to provide better insight into a player than someone who only has limited viewing to go off and has to make a "gut" judgement based on a game or two.
For me, I'll always give more credence to someone who can say "I've watched this group for the last 24 months and here are my overall impressions of these players" than I will to someone who can only say "I watched this game on the weekend and Player X is going to be a jet".
Form and development over time wins out.
Nope. The point is about Ken Wood.Think you're missing the point, FF.
Nope. The point is about Ken Wood.
If you do not get that, you are missing the point.
The trade of picks does not pass the sniff test.
Not really, cause then it would be Philp and Ramsay vs. Robertson and whoever we got at a slightly upgraded pick instead of Ramsay.
Exceedingly hard to judge, given we have no idea who might have accepted 47 and 56 and what we would have got back. Best case scenario might be a 10-spot upgrade, but I think that's extremely optimistic.
Still:
View attachment 787869
Maybe Bryan (though we didn't look at a ruckman at all this year), potentially Rantall or Bianco?
Or maybe we'd still have taken Ramsay.
Philp + Ramsay
vs.
Robertson + Ramsay/Bianco/Rantall
We weren't taking a selection at #55, and if we packaged it with #47 to move up the draft, we would have still selected Ramsey.
Zac Williams is no chance. A local player from NSW and absolutely loves the club.
GWS sound very confident on Whitfield too. Don't think his contract is going to drag out like Coniglio's.
It's a good thing we've drafted our stars Exciting times ahead
Yeah, fair enough.
I analyse companies for a living. It kind of feels the same kind of process.
It's lots of data, ending in a valuation. It's equal parts art and science. Well, it's starts off mostly science (data, formulas). But at some stage you have to make judgements. And this is based mostly on experience, but partly gut feel. The really good analysts are right more than wrong; it might appear they are plucking a number out of thin air, but a reliable gut is a real thing and an invaluable skill. And not just something you get from drinking lots of kombucha....*shudders, ugh, kombucha*
It's the same with talent spotting. Two people can watch the same player and come to difference conclusions/estimates of how they end up. Hopefully your club staff have the better talent-spotting talent.
After analysing stocks for 15 years I use a lot of formulas, but also a lot of intuition. I can see things that many others can't. Of course I also miss some things that some others don't. But I teach people 'Here are some basic rules to follow. And here are some warnings signs to avoid'. It doesn't work every time, but it's a good basis. I guess I was hoping for some similar rules/guidelines for underage footballers. I don't have the eye for talent that other people do, but was interested in some pearls of wisdom from those that do....
Do we really need another one paced inside mid with ok at best foot skills?
Unless i have misunderstood, the pick we used on Ramsay was always ours, im not sure why you are using this pick when discussing Philp, they aren't tied together.
We traded pick 22 and 55 for Philp.
To make sure trades are reasonable. If clearly in favour of one team on picks you got to wonder what would ever get knocked back. Either he was not doing his job or lopsided trades on draft picks alone are likely to never get knocked back.The point of having someone assessing trades is
Thi is interesting and also why I am cautious wanting Agresta in the big chair.It's all in the judgement Ferris. Either a recruiter has good judgement or he doesn't. What goes into that judgement is a million pieces of data, but what the computer(brain) spits out after the data is Judgement.
There are good judges and bad judges.
SOS is a good judge in 2 areas of life.
Conversely, Shane Rogers and Geoff Edelsten respectively are poor judges in those two areas.
To make sure trades are reasonable. If clearly in favour of one team on picks you got to wonder what would ever get knocked back. Either he was not doing his job or lopsided trades on draft picks alone are likely to never get knocked back.
Thi is interesting and also why I am cautious wanting Agresta in the big chair.
I read that he is very interested in 'stats.'
That is only one element in the big picture.
Hopefully SOS taught him about the myriad of factors involved.
The biggest being as you and Ferris have said an informed instinct.
Let's hope we track down a 'Ferris' type for our next list manager.
Indeed...was thinking more along the lines of his work analysis post.