thank you for taking the time to respondBrishawk,
You have brought up an interesting point and one that I had not considered before. Does the 20 meter sprint test give a good indication of the speed of a player, or is it skewed towards taller players? ....... It is a worthy question.
Let us see what happens when I take the top 10 for the 20 meter sprint test in 2020s ND draft. ... I had no clue on the result.
The below numbers show the heights of the fastest players at the 2020 draft... bar one which was an effort to find his height and I could not be effed to chase it.
1.93 + 1.89 + 1.95 + 1.80 + 1.95 + 1.81 + 1.98 + 1.90 + 1.81 + 1.93 + 1.95 = 20.9
Divided by 11 players = 1.90cm.
I do not see a Rhys Stanley in this group, who we all know is very fast over 100 meters but generally does not play “fast” in the AFL.
The average height of an AFL player is 1.881cm. Which is statistically close to 1.90 for our number set of 11.
Proposition: height skews the test result for the 20 m speed Test.
Discussion: There are two AFL “short” players in this group. And no extra-tall players in the group.
Result: the value of the 20 meter sprint test is not invalidated due to the height of the player.
I know the number-set makes this analysis statistically poor. But I’d back it for being generally correct.
If you said that speed and weight would be inversely correlated, then I think you may well be correct. But who wants a skinny, yet fast, full forward... besides Collingwood . If you know another team... TOB is waiting by the phone... just call 13 ALM OST.
Conclusion: Jackson Callow‘s time of 2.08s vs the average speed of draft participants =~ 8.14s shows that he is not fast for an AFL player, but he is also not slow.
And here is the kicker for Callow.... he is just 19 years of age and 96kgs (I’d propose his weight would work against his 20 meter sprint time). If the Hawks want him to be faster, he will get faster.
From his actions = moving states from Tassie to S.A., then to Victoria for a month, then back to S.A., and then putting his name into the draft to go anywhere for his AFL dream... he has shown his willingness to do anything to become an AFL footballer. Attitude = tick.
He speaks well, with honestly, yet with considered reserve. For a 19 year old under the spotlight, he comes across as a good kid = tick. To Be Honest I thought he would be a FIGJAM flog. But in his interview I only saw a good kid.
Further, the Hawks gave him things to work on after seeing him for a month during the 2021 pre-season and then chose to take him in the MSD presumably as he had shown growth in those areas.
Personally, I believe the Hawks had other players higher on their list of talent in the MSD, but those players had been taken before our second pick. That said, history has shown that Jackson Callow had done enough improvement at SANFL level for the Hawks recruiters to want him on our list.
Was that too much? if so, IDGAF, it was fun to do. I am far from being callow (great word ... look up the definition) when I say that Jackson Callow is fast enough to play AFL.
There endeth my statistical analysis... and my word jumble thereafter.
Admit his agility was definitely below average based on testing results. He tested slower for agility than McAsey (9s v 8.6s) who is comparable, McAsey tested woefully slow for acceleration over 20m though (3.08 vs 3.3).thank you for taking the time to respond
I appreciate the effort but I’m not saying only tall players run quickly in the test I just find that particular test problematic because it throws up a lot of results which are inconsistent with what happens on the field. But don’t take my word for it. The topic is discussed by knightmare in the article below. Rioli didn’t even feature in the top 10 in his year but I have never seen a player accelerate so quickly on a footy field. In any case, on that test callow tests in the range of notable key defenders like Harris Andrew’s etc. so there isn’t evidence of him being treacle slow. I’m more concerned with his agility but let’s see how he goes in the vfl for the rest of the year. We could use a guy who can crash packs and take marks up forward so I’m glad we have taken a punt on him
Good analysis but that is damning of McAsey to lose that much ground to a forward who isn't particularly quick or agile. That's a failure to position well or engage early, a failure to read the kick quickly and then lastly a failure to make up the ground with the ball in flight.Admit his agility was definitely below average based on testing results. He tested slower for agility than McAsey (9s v 8.6s) who is comparable, McAsey tested woefully slow for acceleration over 20m though (3.08 vs 3.3).
Thankfully he also tested better for other explosive traits such as leap than McAsey who I really didn't like as a first round pick back in his draft year. There's a highlight in the SANFL where he's leading McAsey to the ball and they both start sprinting to the drop, where Callow very quickly put a few metres on him before taking a chest mark on the lead.
View attachment 1145845
View attachment 1145847
Pre-draft I commented that McAsey was a decent defender in a draft year that had an absolute dearth of KPF talent. It was baffling to me he was taken so early given how poorly he tested, particularly given how little athleticism he showed in game as well. You can make up for lacking certain qualities as a key defender, but being treacle slow is not something that can be made up for.Good analysis but that is damning of McAsey to lose that much ground to a forward who isn't particularly quick or agile. That's a failure to position well or engage early, a failure to read the kick quickly and then lastly a failure to make up the ground with the ball in flight.
Appeared to play somewhat of a negating role on Lever in the second half of the Dees game after Lever cut us up in the first half - showed good defensive skill in the air and displayed a bit of grunt which is always a good thingI liked Kosi as a KD, he has just been injured and Macrae was interested in using him as a KF which has been somewhat of a success, i wouldnt be upset if he went back to playing KD if its better for us in the long run.
One of the major problems with 20m sprint times in a game sense is that the decision making telling someone to start sprinting is often more of a difference time wise than the sprinting itself.Just on combine testing... I wonder how much difference there is between combine testing performance and actual competition performance.
Sprinting hard 20m from a stand still to win the ball in the heat of a game, adrenaline already well and truly pumping would certainly provide many players an edge over the clinical setting of combine testing. I think the difference between these two scenarios would definitely have a mental impact for some players and effect how well they test vs how well they perform.
I think that how they test at the combine could offer more of a baseline indication and then from there is a greater variation between players and their match day performances. Which is to say some players might only be on par or a little better than their combine testing results (ie. they test well or they don't lift much in games) and other players might be much better than their testing results (ie. they can lift in response to something big being on the line).
perhaps we saw how Lewis and TOB still fail to take the next step + DGB being injuredI wonder what has changed since he tried out with us earlier in the year.
He wasn't good enough then but now he is.
I appreciate it might have been a very close call at the time.
I don't expect him to be ahead of any of our other key forwards or backs but hope he can push someone out in time.
That is how we get better.
Also begs the question why they do the testing on hard courts with runners on. Why not do it on grass with footy boots which are the conditions they will be playing under? They've literally gone and put temporary hard court surfaces on top of the perfectly good playing surface.FWIW I have my doubts about the validity of the agility test. It seems to me a little bit of resin on a players shoes could save half a second. Conversly having slippery shoes could loose a player half a second. I wonder if the testers check the players shoes.
Watch him slip on the floor...
vs no slippage
I think they are better off doing this out on a playing field. No wonder people are sceptical of the results.FWIW I have my doubts about the validity of the agility test. It seems to me a little bit of resin on a players shoes could save half a second. Conversly having slippery shoes could loose a player half a second. I wonder if the testers check the players shoes.
Watch him slip on the floor...
vs no slippage
Wonder if it is a copy of NBA testsAlso begs the question why they do the testing on hard courts with runners on. Why not do it on grass with footy boots which are the conditions they will be playing under? They've literally gone and put temporary hard court surfaces on top of the perfectly good playing surface.
I guess they want to make tests more comparable from year to year (if surface conditions change in a tangible way) and/or between those who test at the main draft combine vs the interstate ones. But I still think doing it all on a footy surface in footy boots would ultimately be more valuable.