youth development post-2004

[Old Spice]

Following on from a recent thread about our 2006 draft, I’ve put together some information on our draft history since 2004 compared to some of our competitors. I am looking here at raw recruits, not traded in players.

From this post-2004 group of players, I’ve ranked clubs according to:

a/. total number of games,
b/. average games per player, and
c/. number of players still on list.

I’ve excluded players drafted in from other clubs because it makes the sample too messy, owing to different ages, eg. Wood, Guerra, Podsiadly.

N.B. Players italicised below are not included in the stats but are there purely for those interested in a club's draft history and picks.

Pies

2009

2008 Sidebottom (24), Beams (31), Blair (1)

2007 McCarthy (9), Barham (7)

2006 Reid (19), Brown (42), Dawes (18), Dick (24), Goldsack (45), Wellingham (40), Macaffer (15), Clarke (46)

2005 Thomas (99), Pendlebury (90), Stanley (5), Cook (14), Anthony (41), Toovey (55), Cox (25)

2004 Egan (27), Rusling (17), Cloke (114), O’Brien (99)

Total games for listed players: 804 – 2nd

Avg games per player: 40.2 – 2nd

Players still on list: 20 – 3rd

Overall Ranking of listed players: ?


Cats


2009 Duncan (7)

2008 Gilles (6), Motlop (1), Hunt (4)

2007 Taylor (56), Simpson (2), Laidler (1), Mumford (21)

2006 Selwood (84), Djerrkura (4), Hawkins (53), Hogan (18), Lonergan (39)

2005 Varcoe (65), West (10), Gamble (24), Stokes (78), Slade (6)

2004 Prismall (25), N Ablett (32),Egan (59)

Total games for listed players: 452 – 5th

Avg games per player: 28.3 – 5th

Players still on list: 16 – 5th

Overall Ranking of listed players: ?


Saints

2009

2008 Stanley (6), Heyne (2)

2007 McEvoy (21), Steven (5)

2006 Armitage (26), Allen (4), Clarke (10), Jones (64), Eddy (27), Geary (37), Attard (20)

2005 Gilbert (75), Rix (29)

2004 McQualter (73), Ackland (41), McGough (12), Gwilt (55)

Total games for listed players: 395 – 6th

Avg games per player: 30.4 – 4th

Players still on list: 12 – 6th

Overall Ranking of listed players: ?


Dogs

2009 Moles (6)

2008 Roughead (2), Picken (32)

2007 Grant (11), Ward (29), Reid (6), Wood (5), Welsh (40)

2006 Everitt (31), Stack (10), Hill (53), Harbrow (62)

2005 Higgins (62), Addison (51), Montgomery (18)

2004 Griffen (110), Williams (45), Morris (125), Tiller (21)

Total games for listed players: 661 – 3rd

Avg games per player: 38.9 – 3rd

Players still on list: 17 – 4th

Overall Ranking of listed players: ?


Fremantle

2009 Morabito (14), Fyfe (10), Roberton (4), Barlow (13), Silvagni (11)

2008 Hill (36), Ballantyne (22), Suban (29), Clarke (6), Walters (3), Ruffles (3), De Boer (27), Pearce (11), Van Berlo (15), Broughton (23)

2007 Palmer (33), Hinkley (13), Mayne (33), Bradley (31)

2006 O’Brien (3)

2005 Ibbotson (51), Drum (22), Warnock (21), Duffield (59)

2004 Crowley (92), Schofield (12)

Total games for listed players: 540 – 4th

Avg games per player: 23.4 – 6th

Players still on list: 23 – 2nd

Overall Ranking of listed players: ?


Hawks

2009 - Stratton (12), Kayler-Thomson (3)

2008 – Schoenmakers (23), Shiels (17), Savage (3), Milne (2), Peterson (12)

2007 – Rioli (57), Whitecross (22), Stokes (20)

2006 – Thorp (2), Renouf (36), Morton (22), Kennedy (13), Moss (13), Suckling (5)

2005 – Ellis (61), Dowler (16), Birchall (98), Bailey (6), Muston (13), Tuck (20), Gilham (76), McGlynn (44)

2004 – Roughhead (116), Franklin (112), Lewis (116), Murphy (61), Taylor (84), Young (79)

Total games for listed players: 1,105 – 1st

Avg games per player: 40.9 – 1st

Players still on list: 27 – 1st

Overall Ranking of listed players: ?



Observations

Total Games In terms of pumping games into the post-2004 youngsters, Hawthorn is well out front with 1,105, followed by Collingwood at 804, Dogs at 661, Fremantle at 540, Cats at 452 and Saints at 395.

Average Games In average games per player, Hawthorn is again ranked first at an average of 40.9 games per player, followed by Collingwood at 40.2, Dogs 38.9, Saints 30.4, Cats 28.3 and Fremantle at 23.4.

Listed Players In terms of the number of post-2004 players still on senior lists, Hawthorn is again ranked no. 1 with 27 players, followed by Fremantle with 23, Collingwood 20, Dogs 17, Cats 16 and Saints with 12. I was going to include possible de-listings / trades, but it’s too speculative and I’m not in a position to judge other teams’ lists.

Ranking People who are crazy may wish to speculate on the quality and rank those on the lists to come up with an average. A simple formula may be to list players A, B, C, D, E and then average out and compare with other clubs.


Conclusion

In conclusion, the Pies for Premiers, from 2010 – 2016.

 

[mattys123]

Interesting write up.

No surprise to see Hawthorn, Collingwood and Freo dominating your post results.

I firmly believe this 3 teams will be fighting out the flags for the next 4-5 years, although it seems we may have a "jumpstart" on them this year.

 

[TradeDraft]

Would love to Win 6 Flags in a Row

Great Post

 

[Pie eyed]

Would love to Win 6 Flags in a Row

Great Post

Greedy boy.

 

[the_champ_2004]

System is floored as soon as you include egan and welsh

 

[the_champ_2004]

Also I think you would also need to look at players delisted on both the main and rookie list as some teams have more draft selections than others.


It's all fine and dandy but is purely just numbers. Recycled players have to come into consideration and players yet to play a game if you want to get some meaning because that changes you average and looks at all players not just thrones that made the grade and played a game. Also I can promise that it is only because of injury that Hawthorn has those high numbers.

A good experiment but floored system and ultimately meaningless.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Also I think you would also need to look at players delisted on both the main and rookie list as some teams have more draft selections than others.


It's all fine and dandy but is purely just numbers. Recycled players have to come into consideration and players yet to play a game if you want to get some meaning because that changes you average and looks at all players not just thrones that made the grade and played a game. Also I can promise that it is only because of injury that Hawthorn has those high numbers.

A good experiment but floored system and ultimately meaningless.

I was going to say the same - still listed as a proportion of those drafted.

 

[Frankie23]

Good write up.

Our system is really top class, if you take a look at Geelong and St.Kilda's 00-03 draft period, they absolutley nailed it. Common sense would tell you it is their time now, and they are performing well. For us as a group who missed out on the real stars of those drafts (bar Didak and Swan) to be up there shows our ability to fast track youngsters.

I have high expectations and expect us to make the Grand Final this year, anything less is nearly a failure. However we are set up so well for the next 5 years, especially with the concessions on the draft.

We may very well become a powerhouse of the comp ala Brisbane of old and Geelong IF two or three of these players realy step up and become superstars. The future is very very bright!

 

[Old Spice]

System is floored as soon as you include egan and welsh

It doesn't. I don't know that I'd call it a system, but I've only counted new recruits and their games since 2004 if they are still listed.

Also I think you would also need to look at players delisted on both the main and rookie list as some teams have more draft selections than others.

As above I've accounted for delistings and also included selections from the rookie drafts. The only parameters are that they were picked up (not traded) in the years 04-09, are still listed and have played a game. It's essenitally a look at the youth.

I understand some teams have more draft selections, eg. Hawthorn really emptied out a lot, nevertheless, that's the way it is. Some years were slim pickings, others better and bigger.

It's all fine and dandy but is purely just numbers. Recycled players have to come into consideration and players yet to play a game if you want to get some meaning because that changes you average and looks at all players not just thrones that made the grade and played a game. Also I can promise that it is only because of injury that Hawthorn has those high numbers.

Haven't included recycled players because they are a small portion and I'm more interested to see how well some teams are placed in youth development and their potential upside - from natural development to increasing trade value.

It's certainly true that a lot of those may get delisted, but you can start to see which players have consolidated and who look promising. That Cats and Saints have stopped blooding so many young players is an indication they feel the time is largely ended for youth development.

The Pies on the other hand are fielding a large portion of the 22 from this young group regularly, and still are well placed. With player development there is lots of upside - not quite ossified yet.

A good experiment but floored system and ultimately meaningless.

Ultimately, yes.

 

[Paddywhackers]

Fantastic thread and a fantastic read. Thanks Old Spice.

 

[Dylz48]

It'd be nice if someone would be able to get the numbers for geelong in 07 as I see similarities in the lists

 

[the_champ_2004]

It doesn't. I don't know that I'd call it a system, but I've only counted new recruits and their games since 2004 if they are still listed.



As above I've accounted for delistings and also included selections from the rookie drafts. The only parameters are that they were picked up (not traded) in the years 04-09, are still listed and have played a game. It's essenitally a look at the youth.

I understand some teams have more draft selections, eg. Hawthorn really emptied out a lot, nevertheless, that's the way it is. Some years were slim pickings, others better and bigger.



Haven't included recycled players because they are a small portion and I'm more interested to see how well some teams are placed in youth development and their potential upside - from natural development to increasing trade value.

It's certainly true that a lot of those may get delisted, but you can start to see which players have consolidated and who look promising. That Cats and Saints have stopped blooding so many young players is an indication they feel the time is largely ended for youth development.

The Pies on the other hand are fielding a large portion of the 22 from this young group regularly, and still are well placed. With player development there is lots of upside - not quite ossified yet.



Ultimately, yes.

But how can you include welsh formally of Adelaide but not Luke ball or the like.

How can you include egan a mature age recruit but not podsiadly. Not to mention you also have Dawson.

You need to show all players drafted at this time if you really want to look at it because for all we know Hawthorn may have drafted and delisted five players without playing a game in which case this may show poor drafting.

 

[Old Spice]

But how can you include welsh formally of Adelaide but not Luke ball or the like.

How can you include egan a mature age recruit but not podsiadly. Not to mention you also have Dawson.

You need to show all players drafted at this time if you really want to look at it because for all we know Hawthorn may have drafted and delisted five players without playing a game in which case this may show poor drafting.

I don't include Egan in the stats, or any other player italicised, they are just there for interest. As I say, it's a look at youth.

You're right about Dawson, that was an ommission. I'll edit the stats in the OP accordingly, but shouldn't make much difference to the general argument.

 

[MarkT2]

Some interesting stuff. We line up ok. Hawks have done very well which comes as no surprise. Geelong rank high considering their success. Good sign for their continued success.

Fundamentally I believe the bloke(s) that pick the draftees are the blokes that decide how successful you are. Pre Hine we were atrocious for over a decade. Post Hine we've been good. Hawks have probably been the best but there is also some luck involved. Finishing low when you can snag Franklin and having him last until your pick because you are up against Terry Wallace is pretty damn lucky – particularly when you considered hiring him! Trading 10 for 7 and getting Lewis is more about judgement than luck – and vice versa.

We develop talent well.

 

[soreplums]

When did Alan Richardson start as a development officer at Collingwood? I know that he is at Essendon now, but I wouldn't be surprised if he went over to GWS and eventually took a big job over there.

I rate him highly.

 

[Old Spice]

Recruitment and development are absolutely crucial and I think the above shows both elements are part of a very functional machine at Pieland.

If you look at the players above, you can see from our list that a large chunk are starting 22, or consistent squad list quality:

Starting 22 (10)

Cloke
O'Brien
Thomas
Pendlebury
Toovey
Reid
Dawes
Wellingham
Sidebottom
Beams

Immediate periphery (5)

Anthony
Brown
Dick
Goldsack
Macaffer

Prospects (2)

McCarthy
Blair

Outer Periphery (3)

Rusling
Cook
Barham

You can easily make a case for the second group to be elevated, or some in the first group to drop to the 2nd, but the point is that there are @15 likely candidates for the first 22. That is a great return for 2004-09.

I'm not in a position to judge the futures of other club's lists for this period, but based purely on selection in 2010, you'd say that we are very well placed comparitively.

 

[knightwheelrqr]

Hawthorn will have a strong side going forward over the next few seasons with a whole core group entering their prime years quite soon. They might possibly be the only side remotely capable of competing with the competitions 17th and 18th sides from 2014 and beyond.. *Just personally not impressed by any stretch with their selections in the 2009 draft. Really quite surprised with some of their questionable decisions.*

Otherwise Collingwood also have a strong core group with Sidebottom, D.Thomas, Pendlebury and Beams. With Dawes, Reid and Brown developing well. Hopefully in a season or two I can add J.Thomas one of my favourite draftees to that list also.