Young player development

[srv23]

Well this is something I've been thinking about a little over the weekend and something Drummond brought up in the recruiting thread:

Why is it that when our young players come in to make their AFL debuts they look so underprepared for AFL level footy?

Now I'm not neccesarily comparing guys like Young and Cook to the Gibbs, Naitanui, Selwood types. But I am finding it hard to remember the last time one of our youngsters came into the side and looked reasonably comfortable at the top level. Sloane's debut was ok - clean hands in particular. Martin's game (particularly the first quarter) against St Kilda was very good. - But these kind of debuts are few and far between for us.

I'm not expecting our youngsters to come in and get 20+ possession games - but to me it is a real concern that after tearing it up in the SANFL - they come in and seem completely lost when confronted with the pace of the game.

If you then compare their first handful of games with some players at other teams with similar levels of experience - the likes of Hitchcock, Banner, Howlett, Nason, Peterson - not your standard top 10 draft picks but guys taken at latter stages of the draft or even in the rookie draft who have been given a relatively early opportunity to play AFL level footy and have come in, grabbed their chance and looked the goods on the big stage.

The AFC prides itself on young player development and certainly we have a reputation throughout the league as being one of the better clubs in terms of player development. However we have a fairly well established policy of bringing along our guys slowly and easing them into AFL. At the Sydney game on Sunday my husband commented to me how we could really use the skills of Jetta out there - I commented back that that was all well and good but if we had drafted Jetta he would have been at Coopers Stadium on Thursday night tearing it up against Norwood because we wouldn't play him at AFL level. The last guy I can remember who got a decent crack in his first year would be VB and I wonder if that's part of the reason his development was accelerated to the point that he's considered one of our most important players at a fairly young age.

I'm therefore wondering out loud I guess which is the best way to go. We don't want to gift guys games they haven't earnt. On the other hand I'm sure Hawthron persevering with guys like Franklin, Roughy, Lewis, Sewell during the early stages of their career resulted in those guys getting a good taste of AFL early and knowing how hard they had to work to match it with the big boys on the big stage.

It's also fair to say that in the last few years this is one of the first times that nearly all our draftees are regularly getting in the best players for their SANFL sides and their has been a genuine excitement amongst the supporters about our youngsters and what they will bring to the Crows when they make their AFL debuts.

I then ask again - if the SANFL is the second best Aussie rules competition in the country, and guys like McKernon, Davis, Armstrong, Cook, Sloane are regularly amongst the best players in the league - why do they look so unprepared for AFL when they get the chance. Is there a possibility that these guys playing SANFL for 2, 3 years is actually detrimental to their development as AFL footballers. That they find it pretty easy to be amongst the best palyers at SANFL level and therefore a degree of complacency sets in. That their goal becomes getting in the bests for their SANFL clubs because that will lead to their AFL debuts, as opposed to their goal being to become the best AFL footballer they can be. And when they get their chance at AFL, they're so used to cruising around doing what they like at SANFL level that when they come up against an AFL side they really have no idea what to expect.

I recall Otten mentioned that getting those couple of games in his first year did wonders for his development because before then he had no idea of the step up from SANFL to AFL level footy. It made him understand the amount of work he had to do to cut it as an AFL footballer. Likewise I'm pretty sure Danger also felt the early games he got helped him a great deal in terms of taking the next step.

So what are your thoughts guys? Are we doing the right thing in terms of player development? Why do our youngsters often look so out of their depth at AFL level? What could we be doing differently to make our youngsters more prepared for AFL footy. I only get to a handful of SANFL games but from what I read on here from the posters who regularly get out there, we have some serious young talent on our list. The club has said this is the most talented list we have ever had. So how can we get the most of that talent and translate that to AFL footy?

 

[amer]

I'm not worried about how comfortable they are, it's whether the club has the plums to make exceptions for genuine talent at the selection table for the sake of improvement. If we don't provide Walker, Petrenko, McKernan, these kids with legitimate opportunity, we will be left behind. Simple as that. I've got no issue with omissions if they have a sustained run of poor form, but we are not going to be good enough unless we're proactive with our development.

A good test will be this week - we've got Griffin, who has demonstrated no fight, no heart, and McKernan, who has been a little flat at SANFL level but the club KNOWS he has serious talent, the capacity to drive us forward. Who will they choose?

 

[Wood_Duck]

Why Adelaides draftees take longer to develop.

I am not about to go and do an in depth analysis to prove a point, but it seems to me that our draft picks take longer to become AFL footballers than those of other clubs.

For example our top draft pick from the 2008 national draft, Phil Davis is yet to play an AFL game. Compare that to the rest of the first rounders from the same draft and he is just about the only one not an AFL regular. Not to mention the numerous lower draft picks that are also AFL regulars. Shaun McKernan is in a similar boat. Many players taken in the draft at around the same time as him are also AFL regulars. Even Tahlia and Gunston from the 2009 draft are no where near playing AFL yet lower picks such as Bastinac, Jetta and Duncan look like being regulars.

Jacky and Armstrong from 2007 are also not ready. Yet Harry Taylor, Rhys Palmer, Cale Hooker and many more (including Otten and Dangerfield) are all AFL regulars.

Am I onto something or on something?

 

[jackster83]

Re: Why Adelaides draftees take longer to develop.

Probably because in the past 10 years, we have been a very strong, consistent side (apart from 2004). This has 2 main repecussions: (1) we have never had a top 5 pick in the draft, and (2) it is not easy for a youngster to break into a side that is in the finals every year. Our players do have to wait a bit longer for an opportunity - our backline of Rutten, Bock and Johncock all had to wait some time to get their chance.

Not every youngster bursts onto the scene like Dangerfield; the good ones usually show some flashes of brilliance but not settle until 20 or 30 games and a couple of good pre-seasons (Mackay, Knights, Tippett). Armstrong was always going to take some time (but he has shown enough improvement over the past 2 years for us to be satisfied) and Jacky...well I think the club got it wrong there. At 21, if you are still stuck in the ressies at SANFL level, well you are in some trouble.

 

[Freo Dr]

Re: Why Adelaides draftees take longer to develop.

Harry Taylor was a mature aged recruit but otherwise sounds on the money.

Some players like Morabito for us this year already have a well developed body able to play at AFL level.

Most likely though I think maybe the attitude of the coaching panel. Chris Connelly was a big believer in the older players, preference not to play anybody until they were about 21 or 22 and also believing they only played well from ages 25 onwards.

Maybe NC is holding back your draftees in the SANFL for the same reason until he thinks they are conditioned enough. Although there is a chance with some players of risking injury by playing them too much when still young, the upside is many will thrive with the challenge. Guess it depends on needs and where the club think they are with their list pushing for finals or not.

Dean Kemp played against men (big miners) in the Kalgoorlie football league when he was about 15 - seemed to go ok for him.

 

[Thunderstruck]

Re: Why Adelaides draftees take longer to develop.

I am not about to go and do an in depth analysis to prove a point, but it seems to me that our draft picks take longer to become AFL footballers than those of other clubs.

For example our top draft pick from the 2008 national draft, Phil Davis is yet to play an AFL game. Compare that to the rest of the first rounders from the same draft and he is just about the only one not an AFL regular. Not to mention the numerous lower draft picks that are also AFL regulars. Shaun McKernan is in a similar boat. Many players taken in the draft at around the same time as him are also AFL regulars. Even Tahlia and Gunston from the 2009 draft are no where near playing AFL yet lower picks such as Bastinac, Jetta and Duncan look like being regulars.

Jacky and Armstrong from 2007 are also not ready. Yet Harry Taylor, Rhys Palmer, Cale Hooker and many more (including Otten and Dangerfield) are all AFL regulars.

Am I onto something or on something?

Wouldn't be fair to compare talls with talls and smalls with smalls? We haver drafted very tall of late and naturally they take a good 2 years longer than the average midfielder to come on properly. Comparing McKernan, Talia, Davis, Gunston to Duncan, Jetta, Bastinac is ridiculous.

 

[craig crowing]

Re: Why Adelaides draftees take longer to develop.

Wouldn't be fair to compare talls with talls and smalls with smalls? We haver drafted very tall of late and naturally they take a good 2 years longer than the average midfielder to come on properly. Comparing McKernan, Talia, Davis, Gunston to Duncan, Jetta, Bastinac is ridiculous.

No its not as we could have had these players and many more putting pressure on players that dont deserve to be in team

 

[Vader]

Re: Why Adelaides draftees take longer to develop.

Wouldn't be fair to compare talls with talls and smalls with smalls? We haver drafted very tall of late and naturally they take a good 2 years longer than the average midfielder to come on properly. Comparing McKernan, Talia, Davis, Gunston to Duncan, Jetta, Bastinac is ridiculous.

But comparing them to the likes of Schoenmakers isn't necessarily unfair. Sure, he was gifted his position in the side because Hawthorn are/were utterly bereft of KPP defender options. However, his performances have clearly indicated that he was up to the task.

 

[Cap]

Re: Why Adelaides draftees take longer to develop.

I'm not too fussed with the development of our younger draftees. I think and I hope that the club generally takes a long term veiw on these things and we have a good record of getting players to play long careers rather than burn brightly early and have a career dogged with injures (Players like Fraser and Ball are prime examples).

I don't think the Crows are perfect either I personally think they haven’t quite got the mix right, rushing back senior players at the expense of younger players who have shown something is probably the biggest issue this year.

I would also suggest that younger players get remembered early for flashy stuff that gets called potential than any consistent brilliance. There is only a few players in the league that have gone from new recuirt to consistent star in the space of a few seasons.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Re: Why Adelaides draftees take longer to develop.

Wouldn't be fair to compare talls with talls and smalls with smalls? We haver drafted very tall of late and naturally they take a good 2 years longer than the average midfielder to come on properly. Comparing McKernan, Talia, Davis, Gunston to Duncan, Jetta, Bastinac is ridiculous.

So drafting the wrong players is OK as long as they are tall?

 

[Vader]

Re: Why Adelaides draftees take longer to develop.

I'm not too fussed with the development of our younger draftees. I think and I hope that the club generally takes a long term veiw on these things and we have a good record of getting players to play long careers rather than burn brightly early and have a career dogged with injures (Players like Fraser and Ball are prime examples).

Fraser I'll give you, but I don't think Ball suffered as a result of being played too much too early.

Ball's problems stem directly from being forced to play when he could barely walk, such was the pain he was suffering as a direct result of OP. It was poor coaching (I suspect he would have a fair case if he decided to sue Grant Thomas) which forced him to play whilst clearly injured. If he was allowed the time off to heal properly, he'd still be a star today and not the butt of a standing joke between St Kilda and Collingwood fans.

 

[Thunderstruck]

Re: Why Adelaides draftees take longer to develop.

But comparing them to the likes of Schoenmakers isn't necessarily unfair. Sure, he was gifted his position in the side because Hawthorn are/were utterly bereft of KPP defender options. However, his performances have clearly indicated that he was up to the task.

He is up to the task because he is good enough. Not many KP players are however, only a select few and he was one of the best players from his draft year. His side also needed him very badly as you state but as a general rule a significant majority of KP players take longer to develop than midfielders! So it most certainly unfair to expect performances from KP players to the same degree of midfielders straight from the word go. Doesn't happen in reality.

 

[Thunderstruck]

Re: Why Adelaides draftees take longer to develop.

No its not as we could have had these players and many more putting pressure on players that dont deserve to be in team

When you say 'these players' do you mean Talia, McKernan etc etc? or the midfielders from the other clubs (if we drafted them in hindsight).

They'll only put pressure on when they are ready to put pressure on, we can't expect rapid development from the word go. After 2 years in the system with a few pre-seasons under their belts then they should be closer and by 3 years they should be putting the pressure on. Anything earlier is a bonus for a KP player.

 

[Thunderstruck]

Re: Why Adelaides draftees take longer to develop.

So drafting the wrong players is OK as long as they are tall?

How do you know we are drafting the 'wrong' players? Bit early to judge that.

 

[Mismatched]

Re: Why Adelaides draftees take longer to develop.

How do you know we are drafting the 'wrong' players? Bit early to judge that.

Well aparently, unless a player is playing consistent AFL footy within their first 2 years, they're complete failures

We can't just go round drafting whichever players are the most AFL ready. All players develop at different rates, generaly smalls faster than talls, but just because one player develops earlier than another, doesn't mean he'll be a better footballer long term, which is generally what you're looking at ie what a player can produce over a 10-15 year career, not what he can do in the first 1 or 2 years, they're practically irrelevant to whether you've made a good pick or not, sure its nice if they can contribute in this time, but not the be all and end all as many here believe.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Re: Why Adelaides draftees take longer to develop.

How do you know we are drafting the 'wrong' players? Bit early to judge that.

I'd have thought that our current lack of AFL ready depth would answer that question.

 

[Crow-mo]

If you then compare their first handful of games with some players at other teams with similar levels of experience - the likes of Hitchcock, Banner, Howlett, Nason, Peterson - not your standard top 10 draft picks but guys taken at latter stages of the draft or even in the rookie draft who have been given a relatively early opportunity to play AFL level footy and have come in, grabbed their chance and looked the goods on the big stage.

that's a interesting choice of players for comparison. mature aged recruits have the advantage of being able to slot straight in.

I do think there is something in your point though, and my "theory" is this:
the SANFL is the 2nd best competition, but because of this the clubs are operating more independently, and using the players how they want, not how the club would like them to be used for development purposes.

I also, think the game style is so different now. the SANFL isn't full of the high rotational, zone marking systems, so the type of the play is different too.

what is clear to me, is that stepping up isn't easy.

 

[Crow-mo]

Re: Why Adelaides draftees take longer to develop.

How do you know we are drafting the 'wrong' players? Bit early to judge that.

our record of pissing 1st round picks up against the wall, would suggest not everything is going to plan

 

[Wood_Duck]

that's a interesting choice of players for comparison. mature aged recruits have the advantage of being able to slot straight in.

I do think there is something in your point though, and my "theory" is this:
the SANFL is the 2nd best competition, but because of this the clubs are operating more independently, and using the players how they want, not how the club would like them to be used for development purposes.

I also, think the game style is so different now. the SANFL isn't full of the high rotational, zone marking systems, so the type of the play is different too.

what is clear to me, is that stepping up isn't easy.

Thats where I was heading on this CM. It makes you wonder if Adelaide players are disadvantaged by the SANFL system rather than playing in an AFL reserves team.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Thats where I was heading on this CM. It makes you wonder if Adelaide players are disadvantaged by the SANFL system rather than playing in an AFL reserves team.

Port would be disadvantaged too then?

 

[relapse]

I think Crow-mo is correct about the differences between the two competitions.

I personally think the club has made the mistake in the past by relying too much on the SANFL as a development tool. You are simply not going to make a ready made AFL player by leaving them in the SANFL, once they have developed enough as a player the only way a player can develop and take the next step is by playing AFL football.

Obviously there is no point playing players that are out of their depth, but guys like Walker that have reached a point where they are ready they then need to have steady game time invested in them for them to take that next step. That doesnt mean play them for a couple of weeks and then drop them, it means time invested into them for them to become better players, it is now starting to pay dividends with Dangerfield and if we can play Walker all season he will be a far better player in 2011 than he would be if we keep dropping him back to the SANFL after a couple of bad games.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Port would be disadvantaged too then?

In theory yes. Port do seem to handle their younger players a little differently though eg. Hitchcock, Banner.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

In theory yes. Port do seem to handle their younger players a little differently though eg. Hitchcock, Banner.

Soooooo.... are we still sure the SANFL is the problem then?

 

[spexau]

I think the issue with the younger kids is that because the AFC expect a level of consistency in their yearly performances they are always going to try and pick the strongest team week in week out to try and get wins. I don't fully agree on the approach though. While a winning culture breeds good footballers it seems to breed them more slowly. The AFC should probably be investing more time into developing players that have been consistent in the SANFL because they won't reach an AFL level otherwise. Armstrong, Petrenko, Walker, Cook, Sloane, Talia, McKernan, etc. All of these players need prolonged exposure to AFL football to adjust and grow as players. This might mean some short term loss for some further gain but it's hard to tell. If you give them all 5-8 weeks of AFL football they might start performing above an AFL standard and winning us games anyway.

It's a very hard call to make and I wouldn't want to be the one doing it. I for one would like to see some faith shown to some of the kids, not ALL of them, for a longer period of time and let them have the opportunity to grow into the players we want. That and some man on man football untill we have everyone back to full match fitness.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Soooooo.... are we still sure the SANFL is the problem then?

Absolutely not. it was purely a suggestion for others to comment on. Thats why I said "it makes you wonder". I'm all ears actually. Id love for someone to tell me definitively what the problem is. Do Crows listed players regularly star in the SANFL? I think the answer is no. Do they play out of position for their SANFL club? Are the SANFL coaches on the same page as the AFC coaches in terms of player development? Im pretty sure the answers are no. Is this good for developing AFC draftees? You tell me Carl.