Draft Age - Roos Comments

[WaynesWorld19]

OK explain this logic too me ........

Roos slams 'ridiculous' system
23 November 2007 Herald Sun

SYDNEY coach Paul Roos has slammed the AFL draft process, saying players are too young when they're selected and labelling it a ridiculous system littered with too much "crystal-balling".
The Swans have selections No. 11 and No. 26 in tomorrow's draft.

While Roos has identified a handful of players he hopes to select, he's taken issue with the system.

Asked if the draft remained an inexact science, despite the huge amounts of data and footage available on prospective talent, Roos said "absolutely" before taking aim at the format.

"My thoughts are that they're too young, the kids, and it's too much of a lottery," Roos said.

"But that's what you're faced with and that's the system you've got to work with.

"There's just too much crystal-balling. We've done our own analysis on it, but if you look at the players and their average games, from my point of view it's ridiculous.

"You're going to have an early pick and you're not guaranteed a bloke's going to play more than 30 games. It's just crazy.

"That could be addressed if it was older because you are speculating with a lot of them."

Roos referred to Champion Data statistics revealed in the Herald Sun this week that showed No. 10 picks averaged just over 30 games for their career.

While Roos didn't specify what the cut-off age should be, the 2005 premiership coach said there were simply too many question marks over players picked in their teens.

"Will he improve his running? Will he get taller for the bigger guys? A lot of what the recruiters have to do is picture them in two years," he said.

"If it was another year down the track, then there'd be less speculation and you'd be getting a lot better results in terms of the percentages of players playing AFL footy. All I'm saying is it's a very speculative process at the moment."

Roos' opinions have been borne out at the Swans' selection table in recent years. Last year Sydney was the only club not to play any of its 2006 draft selections (not counting rookies or trades), and only one of the Swans' 2005 picks has appeared at AFL level -- Matthew Laidlaw, who played one game last year.

Asked who Sydney was hoping to snare tomorrow, Roos said the club was seeking to add some speed to its workmanlike midfield.

Roos expected ruckman Matthew Kreuzer and midfielder Trent Cotchin to be the first two picks, but said it was wide open after that.

"You rank them and so forth but in a sense you don't really know when you're pick 11," he said.

"We'll just take the best player available and we're going to be dictated by 10 other clubs."

Sorry is there som AFL by-law that states you must draft 17/18 year olds.

Surely if Roos believes what he says I would have thought that there is a huge reservior of talent sitting in local leagues @ 19, 20 and 21 to choose from that meets his criteria.

But back to the current system .....mental testing can be upgraded, physical testing CAN tell you final height and metabolism.

I can also guarantee that even after seeing many players in the U18 championships I could tell you now which will fail miserably.

But they'll get picked ....promoted to their teams fans as the TNBT.

Now if I can pick duds ...surely recruiters can .....so why don't more do as Roos suggest and pick older players in the local leagues???

Thoughts

 

[IddyBiddy]

OK explain this logic too me ........



Sorry is there som AFL by-law that states you must draft 17/18 year olds.

Surely if Roos believes what he says I would have thought that there is a huge reservior of talent sitting in local leagues @ 19, 20 and 21 to choose from that meets his criteria.

But back to the current system .....mental testing can be upgraded, physical testing CAN tell you final height and metabolism.

I can also guarantee that even after seeing many players in the U18 championships I could tell you now which will fail miserably.

But they'll get picked ....promoted to their teams fans as the TNBT.

Now if I can pick duds ...surely recruiters can .....so why don't more do as Roos suggest and pick older players in the local leagues???

Thoughts

You're suggesting that most kids drafted at 18 are only on lists for the mandatory 2 years, it tends to be more of a 3 to 4 yr process at which stage they are 22 and most supporters want 'kids' drafted rather than picking up a 22 year old no matter if they are half decent (50 games plus potential)(Bradley is a perfect example in this draft). I would speculate that there are plenty of 20-21 year olds delisted that would be of an AFL standard if kept in the system for another couple of years, provided with the opportunities they require etc. Supporters and coaching staff have a problem with patience.

It will be interesting to see your list of dud draftees picked up tomorrow, if you have mastered the science i am sure there are a few clubs who would like your number. Any chance of providing us with a list of those you know will and won't make it?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

You're suggesting that most kids drafted at 18 are only on lists for the mandatory 2 years, it tends to be more of a 3 to 4 yr process at which stage they are 22 and most supporters want 'kids' drafted rather than picking up a 22 year old no matter if they are half decent (50 games plus potential)(Bradley is a perfect example in this draft). I would speculate that there are plenty of 20-21 year olds delisted that would be of an AFL standard if kept in the system for another couple of years, provided with the opportunities they require etc. Supporters and coaching staff have a problem with patience.

It will be interesting to see your list of dud draftees picked up tomorrow, if you have mastered the science i am sure there are a few clubs who would like your number. Any chance of providing us with a list of those you know will and won't make it?

That would require some effort on my behalf ....AP Iam too focussed on which players we'll draft.

But generally if I picked 25 players out of the second half of any phantom draft ....I'd reckon at worst I'd get 50% right

Re the highlighted section .....if players spend 2-3 seasons on a list b4 getting serious games (that would make them approx 21) then what's the difference in just recruiting 20/21 year olds ....seems the results are the same

OR

Your not suggesting that we recruit young players to keep supporters happy ......the selling of "Hope" that the next Hird or Buckley has been recruited.

Whereas if you choose from local leagues do supporters assume you have no hope of getting a Hird or Buckley and instead settled for mediocrity

 

[21knights]

I can also guarantee that even after seeing many players in the U18 championships I could tell you now which will fail miserably.

But they'll get picked ....promoted to their teams fans as the TNBT.

Now if I can pick duds ...surely recruiters can .....

That's a pretty big call. You really should be working for a club if you're telling the truth.

 

[Farmy]

Not the AFL's fault that the Swans are an old side, and are terrible at picking up young talent. Their only saving grace is their ability to use recycled players.

 

[IddyBiddy]

Not the AFL's fault that the Swans are an old side, and are terrible at picking up young talent. Their only saving grace is their ability to use recycled players.

1 premiership later they do it better than most, perhaps thats roos point?

 

[IddyBiddy]

That would require some effort on my behalf ....AP Iam too focussed on which players we'll draft.

But generally if I picked 25 players out of the second half of any phantom draft ....I'd reckon at worst I'd get 50% right

Re the highlighted section .....if players spend 2-3 seasons on a list b4 getting serious games (that would make them approx 21) then what's the difference in just recruiting 20/21 year olds ....s[B]eems the results are the same[/B]

OR

Your not suggesting that we recruit young players to keep supporters happy ......the selling of "Hope" that the next Hird or Buckley has been recruited.

Whereas if you choose from local leagues do supporters assume you have no hope of getting a Hird or Buckley and instead settled for mediocrity

There is also the issue of the physical impact of the AFL world on has on the body of these 'boys' at 17. Surely the the significant incidence of OP of late may be a by-product?

 

[Crow Chick]

I think he is trying to say if players were 20/21 when drafted (like American BB and FB) You'd know you were getting a guy who can play at pick 11, not just a guy based on potential. In any sport it is so much different playing against adults than guys your own age.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

There is also the issue of the physical impact of the AFL world on has on the body of these 'boys' at 17. Surely the the significant incidence of OP of late may be a by-product?

Generally the thought has been that the OP has been the result of the heavy junior programs between TAC, State and school footy ....with the AFL training the final straw.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I think Roos has a merit here and the only way this can be addressed is if the draft age is increased so that you have these youngsters playing in the VFL, SANFL, WAFL etc for a year or two after they come out of the underage footy.

Wayne's World, you say that you don't have to draft a 17 or 18 year old which is true BUT if you distance yourself from that age group you are distancing yourself from talent because other clubs will continue to take punts on 17 and 18 year olds in a hope of finding that gem. They will keep delisting more than half of them but it won't stop them from trying. So going just by the numbers, if you are the one looking for a 20/21 year olds and everyone else if looking for 17/18 year olds, your strike rate will be lower because those players that get to 20/21 in local competitions would be those that are rejects and your would be searching for a gem in scraps.

The only way to make the draft more "predictable" is to increase the age of eligibility by 1 or 2 years. Its what the NBA has done with their draft because there were too many high schoolers being taken early and being busts. Now players pretty much have to play a year in college no matter how good they are and its probably the right way to go.

 

[jenny61_99]

Good post Stiffy Seems to me it is an enormous gamble picking kids that haven't even stopped growing yet. We've all seen top draftee's go by the way-side - and not just for the Crows! Not only a physical issue, but also an emotional one... too many get homesick, too many get caught up in the "star" lifestyle away from mum and dad. A couple of years maturity both physically (playing at local level) and mentally, could see an enormous difference in the success of the draft.

 

[Crow-mo]

thoughts? my thoughts are your point makes no sense.

firstly, everyone is expert. yes of course YOU could tell who will and won't make it. naturally the real experts can't, but that's because they don't have your powers of foresight and intuition. get real.

secondly, his point that we draft too early is roundly considered unassailable fact. this idea of yours that there is all these great talents in the local leagues is flawed. a total non-sequitur. the real issue is that it is too early to identify who is who, very good players are picked up late and early picks regularly suck. that is an issue of identification, not whether they exist or not. your logic (sic) implies that there are these great kids overlooked altogether, and they are all in local leagues or whatever - when that is PLAINLY not what is being said.

Lastly Roos has been very active in trading his picks, so you can hardly suggest he doesn't stand behind this either.

 

[Mismatched]

I definitely think there is merit to increasing the drafting age by a couple of years, at the moment I think it is too close to the end of school(some kids are even listed before they've done year twelve).

Having gone through school with a bloke who was playing first 18 since he was in about year 6 and seen him basically say "i want to play AFL as a career" not care too much about study and then miss out on getting drafted in the ND after being a possible round 1-2 pick, I could see how young kids could throw their lives away, just because they have a hope of playing AFL and don't worry about this.

These young kids have many trials once they finish school with out the worries of playing AFL, there's the usual drugs, alcohol, driving etc then working out what to study etc. These kids then get shipped off around the country and treated like heroes to many people, when really they are only just out of high-school and havn't done too much.

I think there is a lot of merit in making these kids settle down at Uni or get a job, play consistent footy for the clubs they grew up playing for amongst mates and still living with the family. By the age of 20, the kids would have a much greater idea of where they are going with their lives, be much more settled and ready to take on playing senior footy.

Recently with the Crows we have seen blokes like Porplyzia and Vince be picked up around 20-21 and look like absolute gems. Obst went away for a year and now looks a much better prospect, like Porplyzia did.

Who knows, it could quite possibly extend the careers of these players by an extra year or so.

 

[Tas]

Sounds like Roos doesn't have much faith in the recruitment staff at Sydney, we poached one of their better junior recruiters this year, was an ex-North player.

 

[Mego Red]

A couple of thoughts - first, I think the AFL are phasing in an 18 year old draft age over the next couple of years. It is a worthwhile thing to do, as recruiters would recruit 13 year olds if you let them. It only helps the clubs - and the players - if the risk of drafting could be minimized as much as is practical.

Second - Roos is wrong with the stat he quotes. The average draftee across all picks and all years of the draft will play 30 games. The worst draft spot of the first 20 is 6, which has averaged 38 games. LINK.

 

[Crow-mo]

A couple of thoughts - first, I think the AFL are phasing in an 18 year old draft age over the next couple of years. It is a worthwhile thing to do, as recruiters would recruit 13 year olds if you let them. It only helps the clubs - and the players - if the risk of drafting could be minimized as much as is practical.

actually in football (soccer) they do recruit 13 yr old's. Some clown was trying to tell me what a great job Barcelona's junior academy does, and pointed out Lionel Messi. all good, except they bought him as a 13 yr old from argentina, and shipped his entire life over to spain, disrupting the whole thing on a flyer. it's not uncommon either. so you are right in suggesting that they would recruit as young as could be allowed.

Second - Roos is wrong with the stat he quotes. The average draftee across all picks and all years of the draft will play 30 games. The worst draft spot of the first 20 is 6, which has averaged 38 games. LINK.

the data he quotes is complied by champion data, who do not give out very much for free. recycled stuff from the afl might be right, might not be, but as he would have first hand access to this data bit much to say he's wrong. more to the point, how does shuffling a couple of spots change anything? his point remains what everyone has known for sometime.