I have noted a lot of negative comments written in recent times on this forum regarding the lack of correlation between our high draft pics and form. An interesting analogy to note when considering the principles of draft order is the initial machinations of the IQ or intelligence Quotient pioneered by Spearman. Originally the IQ was created as a means of assessing which students would succeed in academia or had great academic potential. Conversely it was also coined to assist teachers and educators in identifying which students in the general population may struggle. The most pertinent point here to consider is that IQ theories as are a number of other well known theories of supposed geniuses around the world only GUIDES as to how a person MAY progress academically. There are a number of underlying mitigating factors which may impede ones progress in achieving what is defined as their academic potential. Some include the following which can parallel to the world of AFL football:

Social factors

How the child integrates with significant others in its own world, how it makes friends and what it does when outside of school.

Mental factors

There may be significant mental hurdles in a child life which impede them cognitively in terms of their aptitude and access to their own innate potential

Family factors

How the child integrates with their own family environment and the relations they have with other family members.

Now take into account that when drafted our junior TAC cup stars are children themselves whilst considering the following piece of mathematics. When a persons IQ is calculated they are given what is called a percentile score. The percentile score gives them a rank of where they sit in relation to other students world wide or even in their own country ( Australia). So we can say that if a child is given an IQ score of in the second percentile this equates to 2 percent of the population being more intelligent than them at that STAGE of their development. And again an IQ score in the 70th percentile would mean that 70 percent are indeed better than them. Now remember the mitigating factors listed above lets now talk about AFL football for a second.

Every year in each AFL draft potential draftees are interviewed and assessed by a raft of professionals including psychologists, physiologists and doctors in order to asses their POTENTIAL to achieve their best. However as we see with injury, family troubles and social interaction of many footballers this only acts as a mere rank of their talent. James Hird was given a rank or draft number in the mere 60's when he was drafted but that number was not accurate enough to asses his potential to reach his bets which we know is exceptional. At a time when so much impetus is put upon draft rankings, order and potential talent consider this when looking at our own crop of new draftees. Logically we could say that based on rankings Jack Watts would be a better footballer than Liam Jurrah or do we? maybe not necessarily. Liam may develop at a greater rate than Jack, may have had his time socializing and having fun and be ready to knuckle down and have a go at the AFL life style. Jack in turn may not have experienced life quite yet and may be lead astray like Travis Johnstone was by the lure of copious amounts of money in a young mans hands. The real question we have to ask ourselves when looking at these draftees is so they need time to develop to reach their full potential? If we base our questions on the IQ system applied to AFL football we could say indeed a firm yes. if we concentrate on pure AFL draft rankings we may say no.

The question fellow posters is are you indeed ready top sit through the journey in order to find out what our draftees haver to offer?

Didak is an arsewipe.

Hall is a [censored].

Fevola wears a nightie and novelty dildo in federaton square in the middle of the day.

Jason Akermanis WTF!?

You can make a pretty good forward line from people with major adjustment and socialisation issues, I'd say.

I would suggest that the draft order is determined by a perceived risk/reward scale, with variations in perception and importance to each.

Picutre a < pair of lines.

Below the bottom line is the chance of failure by whatever cause - injury, lack of ability, external commitments, being a [censored].

Above the top line is the chance of success, in terms of becoming a star/All-Australian/club leader/poster boy, based on skill, athleticism, size, attiude, character.

Obviously the closer you get to the 'pointy end' the less tolerance for risk of failure (below), and the greater demand for likelihood of success (above).

As you get further down, to the later picks, the acceptable area increases, of course.

Every club and recruiter has different priorities and the line is not evenly angled - some will tolerate more risk, others will demand reliabiltiy first, and so on. Every club, recruiter, and fan also has different ideas of what constitutes a sign of risk or potential reward. Someone picked Didak, after all. Someone also picked Fiora, what a nice young man with a solid set of all-round ability.

There's a lot of testing and assessment, there's a lot of interviews and watching games. But it's all a judgement call in the end, it's not an administrative decision by a functionary.

Food for thought DD (both of you).

When I was a young man (so much younger than today!) I remember a psychology lecture (one of the ones I attended anyway) discussing the usefulness of IQ tests in assessing a child's potential. " An IQ test simply measure how well you can do on that IQ test at that particular point in time." His point being the same as yours - I think... that there are a lot of other variables that need to be considered. With IQ tests like the draft too much gets read into the importance of a score that probably has no correlation to anything other than a simple measure.

Kids get drafted on a lot of intangibles that aren't as definitive as we'd sometimes like them to be such as talent and potential, they sometimes don't get drafted because of other intangibles such as attitude. As Dist Dee said it's a judgement call and recruiting is more art than science - in the end and each club would have kids rated differently.

and now to answer the actual question...

The club by virtue (or the lack thereof) has had a number of high draft picks recently and looks to have another couple on the way. I agree that too many supporters lack patience and understanding. There's obviously a rough timeline for when this should translate into performance on the field, but I think what supporters expect and what the club expects are two different things eg Col Garland and Col Sylvia who've both taken longer than a few us wanted.

I do not want to get distracted with a debate about the various merits and limits of IQ or intelligence testing in general or with footballers in particular. However I think the point that everyone has hit on is that one single factor is not important. Rather it is the way in which factors interact - effect each other - that is more important. These are hard to things to think through or even clearly articulate and so often come out in a 'feel' about things. However, the 'feel' is open to all sorts of biases and errors that make them unreliable - or perhaps partially reliable but you don't know when it is right or wrong.

It is just such a challenging area - picking talent and development - and one that I am facinated by.

Oh graz - I've never needed anybody's help in any way.