Roast Francis Jackson

Remove this Banner Ad

Livonski said:
Sydney Stack = Troy Taylor.

Difference is the footy dept. Elite.
Hardwick (and Mrs Hardwick housing theses kids), Livingstone, Hartley, the coaches, player leadership, mindfulness coaching etc.

Point is, Taylor may have been an equally good pick as Stack.
Click to expand...
Give this man a cigar... Richard Tambling would thrive in our current environment, I believe.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

smurfin said:
Recruiting is so hard to judge.
I have seen posters suggesting on another thread that if we have to trim our list to 35 then McIntosh may be one we delist. Does that then categorise him as a failed selection?
Sam Lloyd couldn't break into our team permanently. Failed selection? He would be considered a very successful recruit at the Dogs.

And looking at rookie pick successes. This one's double-edged because rookies should really only become successful if someone picked higher fails.
eg Castagna would hardly have gotten a game if Lennon worked out, Baker wouldn't have if Corey Ellis had, etc,etc.
Click to expand...

I think that(your statement I highlighted above) is never more borne out than on this thread where even in ultimate hindsight, we have polar opposing views of the success of our recruiting.

I have been pondering these other questions you touch on. What actually does good recruiting look like? It is arguable your worst type of recruit is one who out-competes his teammates for a spot in the team but then can’t out-compete the opposition when the whips are cracking. The big game loser. A Josh Jenkins springs to mind. I could form an argument to say that ultimately and Oakley-Nichols at pick 8 in the ND barely playing a game does less damage than that sort of outcome.

What is clearer to me is what the multiple premiership clubs recruiting looks like in hindsight, so I am focussing here on Hawks 2013-2015, Cats 2007-2011 and Tigers 2017-2019 in particular. What do they have in common?

All brought in a load of high end talent in drafts in short order at some point up to about 12 years prior to the run starting. That talent went on to lead and star in their successful teams.

Hawks - Hodge Mitchell 01, Sewell 02, Roughead, Franklin, Lewis 04.

Cats - Corey, Chapman, Ling, Enright 99 Bartel, Kelly, Johnson, Ablett 01, Mackie, Lonergan 02.

Richmond - Riewoldt, Edwards 06, Cotchin, Rance 07, Martin, Astbury, Grimes 09 Houli 10

So you can see the clubs have brought in 6-10 quality players in a period of 3-4 years. In the Hawks case they had fewer of those players and lost one or two on the journey so they topped up elite talent from outside, Burgoyne, Gibson etc. The Tigers also needed to top up a little to get to a critical mass of quality players for multiple flags. The Cats got so many in during a short period they barely needed to add any from outside.

Is a recruiter who consistently recruits solid players a better recruiter than one who blows hot and cold with shocking failures but quite a few of the ones he gets right turn out to be top drawer? If you want to win flags, it is the second guy over the first for sure, I am convinced of that. To produce a really successful team it looks to me like a recruiter needs one purple patch of a few drafts where he secures 6-8 high end players and besides that he can be average or worse and he will have done a great job.

It is interesting to ponder these questions.
 
Livonski said:
Sydney Stack = Troy Taylor.

Difference is the footy dept. Elite.
Hardwick (and Mrs Hardwick housing theses kids), Livingstone, Hartley, the coaches, player leadership, mindfulness coaching etc.

Point is, Taylor may have been an equally good pick as Stack.
Click to expand...

Troy could have been anything, so much talent.
 
Do the Dew said:
The only way to do this objectively (reasonably) is to look at the period he was effectively in charge of drafting, and compare him to his peers across the same timeframe. Every player drafted will get a tick (Cotch, Riewoldt, Edwards etc.), cross (Elton, JON etc.), or a neutral mark (guys who filled a role for the time being but were never going to be stars or dropped - Batchelor, Nahas etc.). Possibly look at the total number of picks/average pick to compare with other clubs.

Obviously this would take a hell of a lot of work, but it would make comparisons between FJ and other club's recruiting a lot easier than subjective arguments (even though rating players is sort of subjective...).

FWIW, I was critical at the start because we seemed to miss so many good players that went at later picks to other clubs, but have come around since then. It's also notable that we were financially screwed and basically didn't have a recruiting department, which obviously hinders effectiveness. Secondly, our player development has gone through the roof recently, and if we could have shifted that player development to a decade earlier, I wonder how many "missed" picks would actually have turned out alright.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your post Dew.

I think if there is a flaw in your suggested system it is that in each of your three categories you would have players of wildly differing values. By that I mean that perhaps Cotchin and B Ellis would both get a tick, but we would mostly recognise one as replaceable and the other as irreplaceable in terms of impact upon the club’s success.

This is why I have essentially boiled my club v club comparisons down to a wider range of five categories, ie elite, very good but not quite elite, above average, average and poor outcome, from the group of players recruited who have played or look certain to play 100+ games. I reason that the group who make it through to play 100+ games essentially make your club’s performance what it is.

There are no doubt flaws and cracks in my system but be in no doubt, if I find for instance a 99 gamer who made a significantly strong contribution he will get a mention.
 
Livonski said:
Sydney Stack = Troy Taylor.

Difference is the footy dept. Elite.
Hardwick (and Mrs Hardwick housing theses kids), Livingstone, Hartley, the coaches, player leadership, mindfulness coaching etc.

Point is, Taylor may have been an equally good pick as Stack.
Click to expand...
Would Puma have bought Taylor a house? :D
 
Suddenly a great thread.

Re recruiting success. If I remember correctly about 1/2 or less of all draftees make 50 games. So the typical pick is a 'fail'. However, as you go down from pick 1 to 70 you decrease your chances. Pick 1 was around 90% likely (rest were basically injury plagued). At around pick 50 (could be 60) it levels out and then the chance of a decent-ish player is about 10-15%. Decent-ish means good enough to play for 2 1/2 seasons in the AFL during their careers. If they play 100 games they are a very good play, compared to the draft pool. So Conca was a genuine really good pick. Maybe (definitely) not the greatest player. But we've seen at Freo he has a lot of value to a team.
Conclusion: All recruiters miss way more than than get 'right'.

Development is as important as drafting. Take Shai. Amazing talent, but lazy and immature. We deliberately worked with him, gave him a game or two, told him to increase his running and defensive efforts. Played VFL until he proved he was what we want. Now an AFL premiership player. That's really good development. In FJ's early days our development was that they turned up to training.

We have a deep squad with genuine good talent. That's good drafting, development and trading (Grigg, Houli, Meatball, Tom Lunch). Put the package together and you a multiple premiership team - and we're still in the zone.
 
This Is Anfield said:
Give this man a cigar... Richard Tambling would thrive in our current environment, I believe.
Click to expand...

Difference is he was in a few environments...................... I'm not as convinced as you are and I was Tambo fan. He was no Michael Mitchell!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Meteoric Rise said:
Thanks for your post Dew.

I think if there is a flaw in your suggested system it is that in each of your three categories you would have players of wildly differing values. By that I mean that perhaps Cotchin and B Ellis would both get a tick, but we would mostly recognise one as replaceable and the other as irreplaceable in terms of impact upon the club’s success.

This is why I have essentially boiled my club v club comparisons down to a wider range of five categories, ie elite, very good but not quite elite, above average, average and poor outcome, from the group of players recruited who have played or look certain to play 100+ games. I reason that the group who make it through to play 100+ games essentially make your club’s performance what it is.

There are no doubt flaws and cracks in my system but be in no doubt, if I find for instance a 99 gamer who made a significantly strong contribution he will get a mention.
Click to expand...
That's Mudguts Stuey Dew to you ;)

I agree you can break players down into further categories (A, B, C...), in the end you can go as far as you want breaking it down. Think you've done a great job so far in looking at our list vs Hawthorn's/Geelong's.

As I mentioned previously and some other posters have brought it up, development trumps recruiting most of the time. Even a guy like Dusty who was a gun from day 1 may have gone wayward without the proper development (and almost did!). it's very rare that you find guys like Duckwood or Cotch who come in and are consummate professionals straight away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Meteoric Rise
List Mgmt. Revealed: The Secret Frank Jackson Formula That Explains Why Richmond Took Ben Lennon In Preference to Patrick Cripps & the Van Rooyen Snub Explained
Replies
23
Views
1K
SouthernStripes
SouthernStripes

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top