Matts Draft List....

[FAITH]

Matt gave his top 10 last year.
Does anyone know if he provided it this year to the media?

I know watts was 1 davis 2 hartlett 3 and the rest of the boys we drafted in our top 20.

 

[Mismatched]

Matt gave his top 10 last year.
Does anyone know if he provided it this year to the media?

I know watts was 1 davis 2 hartlett 3 and the rest of the boys we drafted in our top 20.

He provided it to Emma Quayle for her book, I'm not sure he gave it to anyone else though.

 

[Malibu#27]

Matt gave his top 10 last year.
Does anyone know if he provided it this year to the media?

I know watts was 1 davis 2 hartlett 3 and the rest of the boys we drafted in our top 20.

Am I right that his ratings are based upon Crows needs ?

Ie - this year it seems he was needing talls at the Crows, so his rankings will be heavily weighted to talls ?

 

[Macca19]

his ratings are based on overall, not needs.

 

[Dandy_GO]

No, they're definitely weighted against club needs.
He indirectly said so in one of his recent interviews, though I can't recall which one. I'll do a hunt.

 

[cmndstab]

We don't know it all but...

1. Watts
2. Davis
3. Hartlett
4-14???. McKernan
15. Sloane
18. Lee
19-20???. Young

 

[cmndstab]

his ratings are based on overall, not needs.

Incorrect, it's in terms of overall ability to do well for the Crows.

Obviously talent is taken into major account but this year I have no doubt simply being tall moved you up the ranks. I'll bet our "top 27" read more like "the top 20 talls plus the 7 smalls you couldn't ignore"

 

[KUNG FU]

I'm with Macca19 on this one, the list is overall. Look at Rendell's top ten from last year, that is a truly eclectic list. Needs get factored in from round 2 onwards if we are looking for a particular type of player, but that is only if best available doesn't suit that pattern. The example being Kite from last year getting picked ahead of others because Walker was our only other tall that year. We went tall this year because we rated the talls that were available to be amongst the best.

 

[Mismatched]

I think needs are factored in to a certain extent, like last year speed was given a pretty high importance, this year I think height was given a bit bigger weighting.

Cmndstab is also right in saying thats its also to do with their ability to do well at the AFC, not just at AFL level. There may be some that he believes will be very good AFL footballers, Palmer, Masten and Rioli might be a great example, but he may not believe that they will do well in the environment that is the Adelaide Football Club. A very important factor IMO. Bit like how Rodan became a very good footballer at Port after being delisted at Richmond.

 

[Malibu#27]

I'm with Macca19 on this one, the list is overall. Look at Rendell's top ten from last year, that is a truly eclectic list. Needs get factored in from round 2 onwards if we are looking for a particular type of player, but that is only if best available doesn't suit that pattern. The example being Kite from last year getting picked ahead of others because Walker was our only other tall that year. We went tall this year because we rated the talls that were available to be amongst the best.

If thats the case, then his rating do generally seem to be way out of wack with other recruiters across the board ... it could mean he's shown to be a genius, also could mean he's shown to be a fool. However it could also prove down the track that a lot of what makes a junior player a talent occurs with his development within the club (ie maybe Craig is good at turning kids into good solid players).

I think I read in an old thread that last year the crows selected (including rookie list players) 11 players he regarded as being in the best 28 available. So far this year the number is 5 or 6 of the top 25. If he was correct - that would be staggering success.... and would point to a flag in a couple of years.

 

[cmndstab]

If thats the case, then his rating do generally seem to be way out of wack with other recruiters across the board ... it could mean he's shown to be a genius, also could mean he's shown to be a fool. However it could also prove down the track that a lot of what makes a junior player a talent occurs with his development within the club (ie maybe Craig is good at turning kids into good solid players).

I think I read in an old thread that last year the crows selected (including rookie list players) 11 players he regarded as being in the best 28 available. So far this year the number is 5 or 6 of the top 25. If he was correct - that would be staggering success.... and would point to a flag in a couple of years.

My recollection is only the ND players were in his top 28, except for Kite who he picked because of his height and the fact that he couldn't be rookied.

This year the five in the top 20.

 

[KUNG FU]

I think needs are factored in to a certain extent, like last year speed was given a pretty high importance, this year I think height was given a bit bigger weighting.

Cmndstab is also right in saying thats its also to do with their ability to do well at the AFC, not just at AFL level. There may be some that he believes will be very good AFL footballers, Palmer, Masten and Rioli might be a great example, but he may not believe that they will do well in the environment that is the Adelaide Football Club. A very important factor IMO. Bit like how Rodan became a very good footballer at Port after being delisted at Richmond.

Yeah that's absolutely true the way I have read the situation. Certain needs are given priority if 2 players are indistinguishable. And also, Rendell is aware of the type of club Adelaide is, the culture, the coaches, realising certain players will work with that group better. But I don't think that's quite the same as 'needs' as it is most commonly understood to be eg "We need 4 key forwards in this draft so we will the best key forward available at every pick"

If thats the case, then his rating do generally seem to be way out of wack with other recruiters across the board ... it could mean he's shown to be a genius, also could mean he's shown to be a fool. However it could also prove down the track that a lot of what makes a junior player a talent occurs with his development within the club (ie maybe Craig is good at turning kids into good solid players).

I think I read in an old thread that last year the crows selected (including rookie list players) 11 players he regarded as being in the best 28 available. So far this year the number is 5 or 6 of the top 25. If he was correct - that would be staggering success.... and would point to a flag in a couple of years.

I think it is both true that (1) Most club's recruitment teams have vastly differing ranking ie on Hill, Yarran, Trengove, Cordy, Swift etc, which in my mind is a solid argument against tanking (2) Rendell's opinion differs even moreso from the broader footballing community's consensus and (3) Rendell exaggerated how highly he rated some of his later picks, especially as Kite was not the best available on his list and Walker was a gimme. After the rookie draft he said that he almost picked exclusively from his top 10, barr Salter in particular, but he of course meant from those available. In 3-5 years I think we'll be able to best assess his legacy. Fool or genius. I hate to imagine the chaos he'd cause for phantom drafts if we ever get a top 3 pick.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

If thats the case, then his rating do generally seem to be way out of wack with other recruiters across the board ... it could mean he's shown to be a genius, also could mean he's shown to be a fool. However it could also prove down the track that a lot of what makes a junior player a talent occurs with his development within the club (ie maybe Craig is good at turning kids into good solid players).

I think I read in an old thread that last year the crows selected (including rookie list players) 11 players he regarded as being in the best 28 available. So far this year the number is 5 or 6 of the top 25. If he was correct - that would be staggering success.... and would point to a flag in a couple of years.

Not sure how you could make this statement unless you are privy to every clubs private list. The only certainties that everyone seemed to agree on were pick 1 & 2.

I do agree however he will either be a genius or a fool based on his comments.
Realistically though how many of the players drafted each year do clubs reasonably expect (or wish) to play consistent AFL footy, I would say 2-3

 

[Macca19]

No, they're definitely weighted against club needs.
He indirectly said so in one of his recent interviews, though I can't recall which one. I'll do a hunt.

Last year he said it was based on overall. Given that he had no chance of picking up Kruezer or Cotchin last year, then he would have rated Dangerfield number 1.

So unless hes changed his rating system this year, then im pretty sure he bases on overall.

 

[James23]

I think our needs definetely came into consideration. He stated that we had Hartlett at number 3. But he also stated he had "Trengove, Johnston and Mckernan" as backup incase someone took Davis before us. So i do believe we were taking the next best forward at pick 10, even if Hartkett fell to us.

 

[KUNG FU]

I think needs are factored in to a certain extent, like last year speed was given a pretty high importance, this year I think height was given a bit bigger weighting.

Just one more thing on this comment... I think that's more of a comment based on what was available, last year there were a lot of pacy mids available Myers, Danger, Rioli, Vez etc

 

[Macca19]

Incorrect, it's in terms of overall ability to do well for the Crows.

Obviously talent is taken into major account but this year I have no doubt simply being tall moved you up the ranks. I'll bet our "top 27" read more like "the top 20 talls plus the 7 smalls you couldn't ignore"

Last year when people were querying this same thing, everyone on this board said his ratings were based on overall. When he was queried about it, he said it was based on overall. Now this year its the exact opposite?

 

[Sekaj]

Best guess list:
1. Watts
2. Davis
3. Trengove
4. Hartlett
5. McKernan (?)
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15. Sloan
16.
17.
18. Lee

Feel free to fill in the blanks.

 

[KUNG FU]

I think our needs definetely came into consideration. He stated that we had Hartlett at number 3. But he also stated he had "Trengove, Johnston and Mckernan" as backup incase someone took Davis before us. So i do believe we were taking the next best forward at pick 10, even if Hartkett fell to us.

Then why even list Hartlett at 3? His comments regarding us going tall were based on the simple fact that there were a lot of quality talls available and the ways things were panning out based on the gossip and our own order was that we would go tall.

 

[Malibu#27]

Not sure how you could make this statement unless you are privy to every clubs private list. The only certainties that everyone seemed to agree on were pick 1 & 2.

How ? well the law of averages says so.

If every club ranked the top 30 players exactly the same and picked on best available then the 30 players that any particular club thought were the top thirty would all be gone by pick 30.

The further away clubs opinions on players get, the greater the chance that a club will snare someone it ranked highly with a low pick. Now obviously clubs picking for needs contributes to these differences also.

In addition it appears that he had differences in ranking with the journalist lists (Quayle/Burgan etc).

But using last year as an example, I would challenge you to suggest that every player the crows selected, were generally regarded as top 28 selections.... Hence Rendells opinion of best available differed significantly from others.

this isnt a good or a bad thing, its just a statement

 

[Macca19]

Ill give Rendell much credit in that he is openly putting his balls on the line by stating his rankings in the public domain. Many recruiters dont (though everyone says 'my god we got everyone we wanted'). He's putting it out there so in 2-3-4 years time everyone will be able to see if his ability to rank talent is above or below the norm.

 

[cmndstab]

Last year when people were querying this same thing, everyone on this board said his ratings were based on overall. When he was queried about it, he said it was based on overall. Now this year its the exact opposite?

I wasn't on BF last year to see that discussion but my understanding is that it's his list of exactly which players in order he feels the Crows should draft. At each pick, the highest-listed remaining player gets picked. This tells me that it's the list of players rated by talent and the club's needs.

This isn't the "exact opposite" either.

 

[KUNG FU]

I wasn't on BF last year to see that discussion but my understanding is that it's his list of exactly which players in order he feels the Crows should draft. At each pick, the highest-listed remaining player gets picked. This tells me that it's the list of players rated by talent and the club's needs.

This isn't the "exact opposite" either.

This just tells me he goes for best available. He picks the highest listed player. With the Kite, our last live pick of 2007, the next best player on his list was another small (possibly Sloane, who knows), so going by the surplus of smalls we picked up he skipped the order a bit to the next available tall to add some balance to the list. This year it seems he went best available at every pick and it just so happened, due to the strength and quantity of the talls in this draft in his opinion that they also suited our stated needs. This is very different to the Pelchen technique which focuses much more strongly on list needs and a broader draft technique, rather than a pick by pick consideration.

 

[cmndstab]

This just tells me he goes for best available. He picks the highest listed player. With the Kite, our last live pick of 2007, the next best player on his list was another small (possibly Sloane, who knows), so going by the surplus of smalls we picked up he skipped the order a bit to the next available tall to add some balance to the list. This year it seems he went best available at every pick and it just so happened, due to the strength and quantity of the talls in this draft in his opinion that they also suited our stated needs.

Sloane has since been confirmed as that player in an interview The thing is, I think you're right, he does just go by the "best available" approach, but because he (or the club) wants to focus on a certain type of player, their "best available" list is tilted towards that type of player. In that way, club needs are taken into account.

I have no doubt that last year pace was the focus and the best available list was adjusted accordingly - see Dangerfield's rating as #3 for example. This year, athletic talls were the focus, and Davis accordingly shoots up to #2.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

He's clearly going the best available approach given how fast he reads out the plays names.