Draft Fallacies

[Hva sher a]

Draft fallacy - Big Footy posters are bored by the draft and phantom drafts and post-draft analysis.

 

[Slattery_20]

Melbourne is the worst case scenario. Let me use a statistic to make my point clear: in the 1990 afl draft, the top ten draft picks played 188 games collectively before moving on to new clubs or simply being delisted or retiring. And while McCartney did go onto play 182 games in total, it's a pretty poor return. I don't expect the same to happen to these group of draftees, mainly because the same hasn't happened in recent times. Statistics prove the claim that the draft is improving in terms of performance, preparation and scientific accuracy. You're nitpicking by finding examples of poor recent drafting. As a general trend, clubs are improving their drafting success rate.

Yes, sorry, wasn't necessarily talking about 1990, more the last ~15 years since the zones went and recruiting from the draft became #1. Some very good drafts, very consistent top 10s through the late 90s.

This isn't a counter to my point though, that clubs are more professional in development and training than say in 2000, or 1995, or 1990, or in any time of the afl/vfl history.

No, but I guess what I'm saying is there will always be the clubs that (comparatively) do it well and those that (comparatively) don't. Whether the budgets are measured in thousands or multiple millions. Melbourne/Port/GC of today == Freo/Hawthorn of the 90s... lacking something in leadership, resources, or whatever else comes into play.

The fact that clubs still rely on drafts from 1999 and 2001 merely proves that draftees have to be surrounded by good staff, good coaching, a good group of players etc. all which clubs like Geelong and Sydney have. It does not disprove my claim that clubs in general are improving in their drafting.

I disagree with the conclusion you've drawn there.
Also worth pointing out that drafting perfectly, out of a bad pool, still might not get you anywhere.

 

[bombermick]

Everyone says drafting has improved, but it's still very hit-and-miss. GC had the top 10 in 2010 almost to themselves, yet still missed out on Gaff, Heppell and Darling. Having connections to the right local and state coaches is still so important, as is a bit of luck. An example would be Essendon getting (and keeping) Crameri, which was part talent identification and part luck.