13 Comments For This Post

1. James Rose Says:
   October 26th, 2009 at 5:08 pm

   As a fan of both Clarke brothers it bothers me to see them in the dud picks section and yet they haven’t delivered enough for me to argue against it.

   What I would say though is it is unfair in a lot of cases to criticize the recruiters for these decisions.

   Raph Clarke is the perfect example, he was rated very highly at the time of his drafting by just about everyone- to the point where people on some forums had accused St Kilda of draft tampering in that he said he wanted to go there explicitly. Many considered St Kilda lucky to have him slip.

   Rather than judging the recruiters of a club based on where players are drafted and how they turn out perhaps a more holistic approach is necessary, one where we look at which CLUB is best at developing its talent.

   Even then there are hard luck stories and things the clubs couldn’t avoid but I still feel it is a much better approach.

2. Jermayn Says:
   October 26th, 2009 at 5:22 pm

   Yes its not the best solution on how to pick which club can pick and develop the best talent but I think it is better than nothing and does in some sort highlight the better clubs.

   Yes you do have certain players being culled by injury (Gumbleton), not enough game opportunity (Hewitt) and then just teasing us (Wells and the Clarke brothers) but imo to try and not have too many ‘gray areas’ they came into the dud column.

   That is why I did not focus on early draft picks but rather players that were picked down the order yet have out shinned other players picked higher than them.

   Also after I wrote this, it needs to be reminded that Adelaide did have a high pick in the 2002 draft but they traded that pick for Wayne Carey.
   .-= Jermayn´s last blog ..Which Club has the best Draft History? =-.

3. aussierulesblog Says:
   October 29th, 2009 at 5:49 pm

   It’s probably unavoidable to some small extent, but your choice of “dud”s appears somewhat capricious. It would, perhaps, have stood up better to have a statistical criterion that could give an impression of impartiality.

   I’m also not sure what your research process was. If it was rigorous and thorough, I would have thought that James Davies would feature prominantly on the Essendon “dud” list. That you’ve included Gumbleton on that list doesn’t help. I’d suggest it’s inappropriate to include any player still playing, such as the Clarke brothers (and good to see that Ralph wasn’t listed this time ), Wells and so on. Gumbleton CAN PLAY when he gets his body right.

   James’ suggestion of assessing who best develops their talent is a commendable one.
   .-= aussierulesblog´s last blog ..Video village =-.

   Jermayn Reply:
   October 30th, 2009 at 10:29 am

   Thanks AussieRulesBlog for your input and you love to use your big words don’t you? I had to look up “capricious”

   I went through every National draft and while James Davies was a top 20 pick (#17, 2000 and chosen ahead of Daniel Kerr), he was probably on the border line of being a dud pick. I mainly focused on the top 15 picks for duds as that normally includes the clubs first round pick. In saying all that, he probably should have been included…

   The reason Gumbleton, Wells and Xavier (I also did include Raphael) etc were included was because injuries aside they have not lived up to the hype of when they were recruited and have yet to impress. If you look through the list, Mitch Thorpe, Ryan Fitzgerald and others were also included yet had their careers cut short by injury.

   I know its harsh but until they put together some solid football, they will only remain as a dud pick up who have failed (so far) to impress after showing potential to be a star.

   James’ suggestion of assessing who best develops their talent is a commendable one.

   I agree its something that could well be looked at in more detail as my original article only skims the surface. Any of you guys got any ideas on how to do this??

4. aussierulesblog Says:
   October 30th, 2009 at 10:54 am

   Jermayn, you’ve absolutely ruined my day. . .

   James Davies was … chosen ahead of Daniel Kerr(!!!!

   (I also did include Raphael)

   You have, a number of times in the past, referred to Raph Clarke as “Ralph”, hence my comment.

   It’s also worth noting, especially in the context of this discussion, that draftees have little say in how much “hype” they generate. The hype, at club level at least, may often be a political or marketing ploy to take off some heat elsewhere.

   So, for the poor blokes involved, dud is a pretty harsh description. You’d imagine that, pretty much to a man, they’d have given it their best. It’s not actually their fault that others have placed such high expectations on them.

   In fact, let’s take it a step further and say that the duds are those who didn’t even nominate for the draft. Just being listed in the draft is a feather many of us — me especially — would happily place in our caps.

   PS: Glad to be of continuing assistance in extending your vocabulary!
   .-= aussierulesblog´s last blog ..Video village =-.

5. Jermayn Says:
   October 30th, 2009 at 11:55 am

   @AussieRulesBlog – Now I understand the Ralph/ Raphael comment…

   Yes you are right that the word ‘dud’ is probably incorrect and that the players who have done much better than I (they were picked and played the game professionally unlike me).

   BUT in saying all that, the people are not duds themselves as a person, its the clubs that had chosen them that are the duds, hence why its a dud pick and not a dud person.

   This post is not having a go at the players but more trying to solve the argument on which club is the best at highlighting, recruiting and developing talent into an AFL star.

6. Deano Says:
   November 2nd, 2009 at 5:52 pm

   I’m finding it difficult to define what you class as a ‘good pick’, you are clearly showing your bias towards the Eagles by suggesting that they have had 11 ‘good picks’ whilst the dogs only have five. I suggest you take a look back and investigate further, the Dogs picked up Giansiracusa(32), Hahn(37), Gilbee(43) and Hargrave(66) from the ’99 draft,Cross(56) in ’00 and Lake(71) in ’01. These examples were only a small portion from the team i follow and there are many, many more that imo you have made errors on but again i reiterate that i find it hard to follow your criteria when you include someone like J.Selwood(7) but not Bartel(8)…

7. Jermayn Says:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 8:55 am

   @Deano, you would be right about Lake, Cross and maybe Gilbee, so I will add them but Hargrave, Hahn and Giansiracusa I would have to disagree with so far in their career. They have had solid years but Hahn & Gia have yet to make an impression in the finals (where it counts) and Hargrave only has had one good season (2009).

   In regards to your other question, Bartel was always highly fancied but Selwood was a risk (dodgy knee) at pick seven which turned out to be a risk worth paying off. And did Bartel make an impression like he did in his first 3 years like Selwood has?

   The West Coast players I choose are all premiership players and apart from Darren Glass where picked from the second round or later and have won AA, played over 150 games, Norm Smiths and have been in the top 5 of their clubs F&B at times.
   .-= Jermayn´s last blog ..The Winners and Loosers of the 2010 Fixtures =-.

8. Deano Says:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 10:53 am

   firstly they have all been better picks then Danny Southern, all have been solid players consistently for ten years and played near on 150 games it is not their fault that they started their career in a dark time for the club just as it is Selwood’s good fortune that he was drafted into one of the best teams of all time, would his impact be as great if he was drafted by Richmond? I think not.

   Secondly if guys like Campbell Brown, Drew Petrie and Kurt Tippet are on this list as being good picks then Hahn, Gia and Shaggy are walk up starters.

   Thirdly does winning a premiership make you a good player? If the Dogs win the flag next year does that mean that those three blokes go on to your list simply because they have won a premiership? I just think you need clearer guidelines.

9. Jermayn Says:
   November 3rd, 2009 at 11:18 am

   @Deano – By the end of their careers yes they will probably be better, much better and while its not quite fair to judge someone who has completed their career to someone who is still playing but like you have stated my selection is fair from perfect (and I acknowledge this and your more than welcome to come up with a better selection strategy).

   I think you are slightly over rating Hahn and Gia Deano…

   In regards to your question about being a premiership player making you a better player than someone who has not. You are right it does not (and I have made this point before) but players do get judged on their final appearances.

   For example Riewoldt will be remembered for his ‘acting’ and poor 2009 Grand Final, like Hahn and Gia (limited goals in finals) and Barry Hall in the 2006 Grand Final.

   Deano and others, please give us some clearer guidelines and then we can re visit which club is better at recruiting and picking up gems in the draft.

10. Deano Says:
    November 4th, 2009 at 7:17 am

    beauty is in the eye of the beholder mate, Hahn and Gia will never get the kudos they deserve but i wouldn’t trade either of them. Do me a favour and watch both closely this year I think you will be surprised at both the work rate and amount of goals these guys create. Personally I don’t rate A.Selwood but don’t begrudge him being on your list, each to their own.

    Selwood and Rich IMO were both very highly rated and it was other clubs poor judgement rather then Geelongs and Brisbane’s ‘good picking’ In particular Rich, most of us on this site knew that he was going to be something special, Brisbane could not believe their luck that he fell through to number seven.

    For me I think some clearer guidelines could be no ‘good picks’ in the first 15-20 of the draft. These blokes are all first rounders and are expected to make it therefore guys that don’t make it from the first round are clearly ‘dud picks’.

    I like your All Australian and Top5 in B&F but Premiership player and finals performance doesn’t sit right with me. Farren Ray is a prime example, he is in your dud list but was without question our best player in the 2006 finals series and was a couple of kicks away from being a premiership player this year, blokes can be good finals performers and premiership players and not be consistent AFL players and likewise a guy can have a solid 200 game career without starring in finals or winning a flag.

    Personally I would disregard most forms of drafting pre 1997, rorting salary caps and teams playing outside of the rules was rife until the late 90′s and early 00′s. It took more cunning then skill back then.

    Jermayn Reply:
    November 5th, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    @Deano, my brother is a Doggies supporter so 98% of the live (at the ground) games I have seen are off the Dogs when they come to Perth. I agree that Hahn and Gia work hard, I have seen Gia at his best chopping up Wirra in his AA & Grand Final years..

    So in fine tuning the guideline, we do not include first round picks as ‘good picks’ but do include ‘dud picks’ if they do not make it? and we include All Australian and top 5 in B&F if they are recruited from 16-18 onwards???

    Like I have said before, I agree that being premiership player does not make you a star or a good pick up. The WCE players I picked in the original list are just not premiership players, they have other credentials to their name.

11. Deano Says:
    November 5th, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    I think longevity has to come into consideration too, guys like Hargrave, who are not superstars, was a speculative pick, hence the number 66, for him to amass 150 games and look as if he will play 200 plus is a massive effort, surely this constitutes being a ‘good pick’

12. Jermayn Says:
    November 5th, 2009 at 4:51 pm

    OK, so we add Hargrave based on his AA selection this year and the fact he has amassed 150+ games??

    So updated selection for ‘good picks’ is first have to be a second round or higher and then one (or two??) of the following:
    - top 5 in their clubs F&B at least twice
    - AA selection
    - Brownlow, Norm or Coleman medallist
    - 150+ games for a second + round pick
    - 100+ games for a rookie selection

    any others for ‘good picks’??

    Ok now for the ‘dud picks’:
    - first round and less than 80-100 game for their first club

    Everyone happy with this now??

13. aussierulesblog Says:
    November 6th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    Well, at least the criteria are becoming clear now.

    On the games criteria, perhaps a number for average games per season — which then removes the need for 150 or 100 games (roughly six and four seasons respectively) to be played. Frankly, if a rookie-listed player is around for four seasons, I reckon he’s better than a ‘good’ pick. Likewise, a draft pick that plays six seasons is an established player. What about avg 15 games per season?

    Similarly, for the duds, it’s possible for very good footballers to be injured and forced into retirement from the elite level. What about less than 30 games in their first three seasons?

    And none of this, so far, takes into account the difficulty of breaking into the team. Even I could just about break into the Melbourne team, but some pretty handy players have struggled to get a regular spot in good teams. Remember that, in a different era, Gary O’Donnell played 99 reserves games on the way to becoming club captain. That sort of wait for an opportunity is no longer available, so some seriously good players can miss out through no fault of their own.
    .-= aussierulesblog´s last blog ..Is it employment or not? =-.

    Jermayn Reply:
    November 9th, 2009 at 10:19 am

    @AussieRulesBlog – Thanks for your other inputs…

    So updating the selection for ‘good picks’ again, they first have to be a second round or higher (#20 and above) and then one (or two??) of the following:
    - top 5 in their clubs F&B at least twice.
    - AA selection.
    - Brownlow, Norm or Coleman medalist.
    - 4+ seasons with an average of 15 games a season or
    - 4+ seasons on the senior list for a rookie selection.

    btw I was again away at another conference over the weekend hence why I have only been able to reply now.