Melbourne analytics expert Stephen Gloury has developed a formula to assess the recent draft performances of each AFL club.His research suggests Melbourne, West Coast and North Melbourne, ranked No.1, 2 and 3 on his draft performance chart, have enjoyed good value for their picks as they head toward a premiership resurgence around 2012-14. Refer to http://www.heraldsun...225827457502for the full report.

The key factor in Melbourne's high rating was a bumper '07 draft in which it was deemed to have excelled by picking midfield guns Cale Morton and Jack Grimes, plus No.53 selection Kyle Cheney and 2004 rookie Aaron Davey.

The club's recent strike rate is also high as only one (Isaac Weetra) of the 10 players the Dees selected in the '06 and '07 drafts is considered to have performed poor-below average, relative to his draft group.

Melbourne analytics expert Stephen Gloury has developed a formula to assess the recent draft performances of each AFL club.His research suggests Melbourne, West Coast and North Melbourne, ranked No.1, 2 and 3 on his draft performance chart, have enjoyed good value for their picks as they head toward a premiership resurgence around 2012-14. Refer to DEMONS RULE DRAFT for the full report.

That's based on our recruiting from 2004/7 and doesn't include 2008 & 2009 which means the picture will just keep on getting better and better.

Hmmm...What about Dunn, Newton, Simon Buckley, Bartram, Heath Neville, Weetra??

McNamara, Maric, Martin, Cheney have yet to confirm that they were good picks.

I think 04 & 05' were just 'average' for us in terms of recruiting. Not sure about that proclamation..

It's our 06-09 drafting that's got me excited about possible future success. I think we've absolutely nailed it in these years..

Edited February 6, 201015 yr by Benny & The Jett

Hmmm...What about Dunn, Newton, Simon Buckley, Bartram, Heath Neville, Weetra??

McNamara, Maric, Martin, Cheney have yet to confirm that they were good picks.

I think 04 & 05' were just 'average' for us in terms of recruiting. Not sure about that proclamation..

It's our 06-09 drafting that's got me excited about possible future success. I think we've absolutely nailed it in these years..

Are you serious? You have named 2 late first round picks, a couple of late 2nd round / early third round, 4th round and rookie picks. How terrible that none of them have gone on... mind you, you have picked out the failures rather than the successes. For example you can not bag the recruiters for dunn without including Bate in the equation and in any case you can not bag Dunn unless there are lots of picks after him in that draft that are better. In my opinion he at least would get regular games at numerous other AFL games so that is hardly a failure.

Just some maths close to 100 players are picked up every year from the draft. At any point in time each list has 46 players on it (including rookies) That gives us 700 players in the AFL. Taking away players from the last three years.... you are left with about 450 player with more than three years experience. Good players play for 10+ years. That means that only 45 out the 100+ selected every year actually makes it.

Over half of all players selected do not make it. That means our recruiting in 04 and 05 is probably pretty good and will set us up for the future.

Hmmm...What about Dunn, Newton, Simon Buckley, Bartram, Heath Neville, Weetra??

McNamara, Maric, Martin, Cheney have yet to confirm that they were good picks.

I think 04 & 05' were just 'average' for us in terms of recruiting. Not sure about that proclamation..

It's our 06-09 drafting that's got me excited about possible future success. I think we've absolutely nailed it in these years..

How exactly do you do that?

It's subjective.

Performance is judged based on indicators such as games played.

MFC players will appear favourably because they have played, but this system fails to take into account that some have played ahead of their time due to injuries to others, or the club having insufficient capable senior players.

More of MFC's later draft picks have earnt significant game time, whereas the doggies receive a poor rating due to few of their recent draftees having been able to squeeze into a strong side where the majority of performers aren't in their final years.

How exactly do you do that?

It's subjective.

Performance is judged based on indicators such as games played.

MFC players will appear favourably because they have played, but this system fails to take into account that some have played ahead of their time due to injuries to others, or the club having insufficient capable senior players.

More of MFC's later draft picks have earnt significant game time, whereas the doggies receive a poor rating due to few of their recent draftees having been able to squeeze into a strong side where the majority of performers aren't in their final years.

This week especially the AGM & INFORMATION night was one of the most positive weeks I have had at this football club for many a day.To have this draft news, as positive as it is, is also great news.Whilst your comments are sound, I think we do not need the negative inflences such as your post at this time. Put it down to development.Let the football department do the talking and let us sit back and watch their progress. Then at the end of 2010- let us analyse.Give them a break at this time. Go dees-stick it up them!

Edited February 6, 201015 yr by jayceebee31

Are you serious? You have named 2 late first round picks, a couple of late 2nd round / early third round, 4th round and rookie picks. How terrible that none of them have gone on... mind you, you have picked out the failures rather than the successes. For example you can not bag the recruiters for dunn without including Bate in the equation and in any case you can not bag Dunn unless there are lots of picks after him in that draft that are better. In my opinion he at least would get regular games at numerous other AFL games so that is hardly a failure.

Just some maths close to 100 players are picked up every year from the draft. At any point in time each list has 46 players on it (including rookies) That gives us 700 players in the AFL. Taking away players from the last three years.... you are left with about 450 player with more than three years experience. Good players play for 10+ years. That means that only 45 out the 100+ selected every year actually makes it.

Over half of all players selected do not make it. That means our recruiting in 04 and 05 is probably pretty good and will set us up for the future.

Yes mate I am deadly serious. If you're that one-eyed that your happy to buy that piece of candy story then that's your problem.

I have no idea about the researcher's methodology, but if he reckons we've drafted the best between 2004-2007 then he's deluded..

Anyone can spot a first round pick, even you probably. The great skill in recruiting is in nailing your selections 'after' the 1st round, and aside from 2006, we've got very little out of our picks 'after' the 1st round..

How does that make us the no. 1 team in the competition for recruiting between 04-07'??..Absolute bollocks.

I guess our 'outstanding' performance at the draft table in 2004 & 2005 really set us up nicely for winning back to back 'wooden spoons' in 08' & 09'..

We've won 11 games in 3 years and we've been the best team at the Draft table since 2004. Ridiculous.

Hmmm...What about Dunn, Newton, Simon Buckley, Bartram, Heath Neville, Weetra??

For every unsuccessful mid-table pick that we've had, we've also had absolute gems with late and rookie picks... Davey, Martin, Garland, Warnock, Jamar, some dud by the name of Liam Jurrah

The key for us since 2007 has been drafting best-available early on, thus minimizing greatly the risk of wasted picks (hello Luke Molan) and then taking risks on later picks and choosing players based on X factor and potential.

In the space of 3 drafts we have virtually built a future premiership side, so it really doesn't surprise me we came out top in that analysis.

Of course all this means nothing if we can't convert the talent that is there on paper into something tangible on the field, and this is I think where other clubs have excelled while we've struggled in previous years.

Performance is judged based on indicators such as games played.

Which is why it is a total crock. How that equation is seen to be an indicator of anything is anyone's guess.

All it proves is that we've been giving far too many senior AFL games to players who are 'not' up to standard..

Adelaide drafted the likes of Van Berlo, Knights, Vince, Porplyzia, Tippett, Mackay, Dangerfield, Otten, and Taylor Walker in the same period, only 1 was a 1st round pick (Dangerfield p#10 07').

How they didn't even make the top 3 i'll never know..

In the six drafts from 2000-2005 we drafted 24 players. At present that group represents a total of FOUR good players (Jones, Bate, Sylvia and Rivers) you can throw in McLean and Thompson and call them Gysberts and Moloney. Luckily we got Davey, Ozzie, Martin and Warnock through rookie/PSD. Pretty bloody awful return. This is why we've been the worst side in the last 3 years.

We had better pray it pans out better for us with the next 4 drafts:

1 Watts

1 Scully

2 Trengove

4 Morton

11 Gysberts

12 Frawley

14 Grimes

17 Blease

18 Tapscott

19 Strauss

21 Maric

plus Jurrah, Joel MacD, Petterd, Garland, Cheney, Benny and the Jet

Of course all this means nothing if we can't convert the talent that is there on paper into something tangible on the field, and this is I think where other clubs have excelled while we've struggled in previous years.

That's all that needs to be said on this topic

In the six drafts from 2000-2005 we drafted 24 players. At present that group represents a total of FOUR good players (Jones, Bate, Sylvia and Rivers) you can throw in McLean and Thompson and call them Gysberts and Moloney. Luckily we got Davey, Ozzie, Martin and Warnock through rookie/PSD. Pretty bloody awful return. This is why we've been the worst side in the last 3 years.

That's a good point. The 2000-2003 drafting has probably exacerbated the problem. But I still cannot accept that our drafting over 04-07 has been the best in the comp as the study suggests.

06 & 07 have been very good recruiting years for us. 04-05 were just average.

Therefore, we're probably middle of the road for the period...

Which is why it is a total crock. How that equation is seen to be an indicator of anything is anyone's guess.

All it proves is that we've been giving far too many senior AFL games to players who are 'not' up to standard..

It is a crock, but it doesn't necessarily say our players aren't up to standard.

It is an indicator of our dearth of competent senior players over the last 3 or 4 years.

Whether the young players were up to scratch or not is not relevant or indicated - they had to play.

What an idiotic response.

No, you're right. A dose of reality is exactly what we don't need.

Come on...

I'm all for enthusiasm, but not based on flimsy theories that don't stand up to a bit of common sense.

I agreed 100% with what you said in the previous comment...

Yes mate I am deadly serious. If you're that one-eyed that your happy to buy that piece of candy story then that's your problem.

I have no idea about the researcher's methodology, but if he reckons we've drafted the best between 2004-2007 then he's deluded..

Anyone can spot a first round pick, even you probably. The great skill in recruiting is in nailing your selections 'after' the 1st round, and aside from 2006, we've got very little out of our picks 'after' the 1st round..

How does that make us the no. 1 team in the competition for recruiting between 04-07'??..Absolute bollocks.

I guess our 'outstanding' performance at the draft table in 2004 & 2005 really set us up nicely for winning back to back 'wooden spoons' in 08' & 09'..

We've won 11 games in 3 years and we've been the best team at the Draft table since 2004. Ridiculous.

Your argument depends on your definition of the bolded section.

If you mean we brought the best talent into the club of any other team, then we have drafted the best.

If you mean we've managed to draft the best young talent in relation to which picks we had, then it is debatable.

I'd say the former is only relevant for this thread.

If you mean we've managed to draft the best young talent in relation to which picks we had, then it is debatable.

It's debatable and completely and utterly unanswerable by anyone. Only time will tell.

It is a crock, but it doesn't necessarily say our players aren't up to standard.

It is an indicator of our dearth of competent senior players over the last 3 or 4 years.

Whether the young players were up to scratch or not is not relevant or indicated - they had to play.

The senior players are an issue, but as I said previously, just look at some of the players Adelaide have brought in during the same period, and to see how important they've been in their recent success.

The crows did not have a selection higher than pick #8, they even mucked up two of their 1st round picks with speculative talls that didn't work out, so it could've been even better.

I honestly don't think the likes of Dunn, Newton, Buckley, Bartram, Neville, Weetra, etc. would've been any better off at stronger clubs.

I'd say only Frawley, Garland, Morton and Grimes (sorry Bate as well!) are absolute 'sure things' as quality AFL players to be picked from this period (of the main Draft selections), and 4 of them were 1st rounders...I mean how Jack Grimes slipped to 14 is anyone's guess. He was rated by more than a few good judges as a top 5 selection. We got lucky there, I would've picked him if I was in Craig Cameron's chair...

Our recruiting between 06'-09' will look very good in 5 years time, but we've also had a heap of early selections to work with so it ought to look good..

Edited February 7, 201015 yr by Benny & The Jett

Your argument depends on your definition of the bolded section.

If you mean we brought the best talent into the club of any other team, then we have drafted the best.

If you mean we've managed to draft the best young talent in relation to which picks we had, then it is debatable.

I'd say the former is only relevant for this thread.

I meant to say that if he reckons we've drafted the best of any club between 2004-2007 'relative' to draft selection's then he's got it wrong. Adelaide have outperformed us relative to draft 'selections', and i am sure there are others.

06 & 07 were strong drafts for us, but we did have 4 picks inside the top 21 (or 3 of top 15) for those 2 years..I also doubt whether we've even brought in the 'best' talent overall in that period regardless of the picks..Despite having strong drafts in 06 & 07.

Edited February 7, 201015 yr by Benny & The Jett

I meant to say that if he reckons we've drafted the best of any club between 2004-2007 'relative' to draft selection's then he's got it wrong. Adelaide have outperformed us relative to draft 'selections', and i am sure there are others.

06 & 07 were strong drafts for us, but we did have 4 picks inside the top 21 (or 3 of top 15) for those 2 years..I also doubt whether we've even brought in the 'best' talent overall in that period regardless of the picks..Despite having strong drafts in 06 & 07.

"drafted AMONG the best" I should have said.

"drafted AMONG the best" I should have said.

Well the article says that we were judged #1 by this study. We had 2 very good years (where we nailed our 1st round choices) and 2 quite mediocre ones imo (2006 was also a strong draft, so we should've picked well...)

I'd say off the top of my head, we've performed a bit better than average for the competition in the period. Probably around 5th-8th for the picks we've had. Certainly not #1..

Bate, Morton, Grimes, Frawley, Garland are all terrific talents. I'd say we're probably top 4 or 5 of all teams in the players we've brought in over the period, but not #1 in terms of success in using our picks overall, which I assume is the point of the study..

Edited February 7, 201015 yr by Benny & The Jett

Without knowing the methodology I think it is pretty easyy to dismiss this kind of analysis. Certainly to assume we have been the besst drafting team 04-07 is a stretch but it does highlight the fact that when 2012 rolls around there will be teams who will need to rely on players drafted in those years (04-07)we have a set who will have the most experience when they move into their mid to late 20s.

BELOW IS A TEAM I HAVE COMPILED FROM PLAYERS DRAFTED FROM TO 2004

Team in 2012 is:

B: CHENEY(12 GAMES PLAYED) WARNOCK(38) GARLAND(20)

HB: BENNELL(16) FRAWLEY(40) MacDONALD(0 MFC-82@BRISB)

C: GRIMES(12) TRENGOVE(0) STRAUSS (0)

HF: TAPSCOTT (0) WATTS (3) BATE(68)

F: WONAEAMIRRI(18) FITZPATRICK(0) JURRAH(9)

R: GAWN (0)McKENZIE(6) SCULLY(0)

I: SPENCER(9) MORTON (40) BLEASE (0) GRYSBERTS(0)

Average games played for MFC IS 285 DIVIDED BY 22 = 13 GAMES ONLY PLAYED together as a possibility.I realise not all of theabove will plat together but it does give an insight to the lack of experience.

Therefore No wonder why Bailey says these players need to play a long innings together to gain experience as a team.

EMERG: MARIC, JONES, McNAMARA,JETTA

DUNN McKENZIE PETTERD VINEY,

PLAYERS TO BE CONSIDERED ARE ALL DEBUTANTS IN 2003- RIVERS, MOLONEY & JAMAR or Sylvia whom was drafted in 2003,DEBUTED IN 2004,Davey rookie drafted in 2003,PLAYED 2003.

I can see how the analysed picked the Dees to be tops during this period.

Draft picks in 2004 were-- Bate, Dunn, Newton,rookie-Warnock

2005- Jones, Buckley, Neville

2006- Frawley,Petterd, Garland,Weetra,

2007- Morton,Maric,Cheney,McNamara- rookies- Wonaeamirri,Spencer,Vallenti

2008- Watts,Blease,Strauss,Bennell, Jetta,Bail, PSD- Jurrah rookies-McKenzie,Healey,Hughes.

2009- Scully, Trengove,Gysberts,Tapscott, Gawn, Fitzpatrick, PSD- MacDonald.Rookies- Newton &,Meeson

To me not a bad draft selection over the years 2004 to 2009.

If I have missed any let me know.

Edited February 8, 201015 yr by jayceebee31

Draft picks in 2004 were-- Bate, Dunn, Newton,rookie-Warnock

2005- Jones, Buckley, Neville

2006- Frawley,Petterd, Garland,Weetra,

2007- Morton,Grimes ,Maric,Cheney,McNamara- rookies- Wonaeamirri,Spencer,Vallenti

I have constructed two alternative series. The first is the pick immediately before our pick and then my interpretation of the best pick available in the next two selections after our pick. This tells us how we went relatively to the other teams with similar picks over the 2004-2007 timeframe

Picks one better than Melbourne (In theory should be a far better team)

2004 - Danny Meyer, Angus Monfries, Ivan Maric

2005 - Shaun Higgins, Matthew Laidlaw, Austin Lucy

2006 - Andrejs Everitt, Eric MacKenzie, Brennan Stack, Josh Hill

2007 - Chris Masten, Brad Ebert, Tony Notte,Bradd Dalziell

My conclusion is that I would take our picks over the pick proceeding us across the board with the exception of Hill, Higgins and Monfries. This is an outstanding result.

Picks one/two worst than Melbourne (In theory should be a far better team as more choice)

2004 - Angus Monfries ,Adam Pattison, Justin Sherman

2005 - Grant Birchall, Brett Montgomery, Tim Hutchison

2006 - Jack Riewoldt, Kurt Tippett, Kyle Reimers, Tyson Goldsack

2007 - David Myers, Matthew Lobbe,Tayte Pears,Mark Johnson

You have to be very good to do better than twice the number of picks even if they are slightly pushed down the order. How did we go? Well Tippett and sherman are the two the really hurt. Having said that I would take Bate, Dunn, Frawely, Garland, Morton Grimes, Maric. Which I think is pretty good result. Over all I rank these collective picks above the ones we got but not by a huge margin.

Feel free to rank how you wish but pretty much everyone with the pick before use would have done better going with Melbournes pick and there was in many cases our pick was better than the next two. I think in hindsight Melbourne did great. 2003 was also a great year for us on a relative terms however the draft as a whole was a stinker so we suffered. 2000-2002 is enough to give nightmares (Scotty Thompson excluded) as was the trading away of numerous first / early second round picks. This is why we are down now and not because of bad performance in 2004 /2007.

I have constructed two alternative series. The first is the pick immediately before our pick and then my interpretation of the best pick available in the next two selections after our pick. This tells us how we went relatively to the other teams with similar picks over the 2004-2007 timeframe

Picks one better than Melbourne (In theory should be a far better team)

2004 - Danny Meyer, Angus Monfries, Ivan Maric

2005 - Shaun Higgins, Matthew Laidlaw, Austin Lucy

2006 - Andrejs Everitt, Eric MacKenzie, Brennan Stack, Josh Hill

2007 - Chris Masten, Brad Ebert, Tony Notte,Bradd Dalziell

My conclusion is that I would take our picks over the pick proceeding us across the board with the exception of Hill, Higgins and Monfries. This is an outstanding result.

Picks one/two worst than Melbourne (In theory should be a far better team as more choice)

2004 - Angus Monfries ,Adam Pattison, Justin Sherman

2005 - Grant Birchall, Brett Montgomery, Tim Hutchison

2006 - Jack Riewoldt, Kurt Tippett, Kyle Reimers, Tyson Goldsack

2007 - David Myers, Matthew Lobbe,Tayte Pears,Mark Johnson

You have to be very good to do better than twice the number of picks even if they are slightly pushed down the order. How did we go? Well Tippett and sherman are the two the really hurt. Having said that I would take Bate, Dunn, Frawely, Garland, Morton Grimes, Maric. Which I think is pretty good result. Over all I rank these collective picks above the ones we got but not by a huge margin.

Feel free to rank how you wish but pretty much everyone with the pick before use would have done better going with Melbournes pick and there was in many cases our pick was better than the next two. I think in hindsight Melbourne did great. 2003 was also a great year for us on a relative terms however the draft as a whole was a stinker so we suffered. 2000-2002 is enough to give nightmares (Scotty Thompson excluded) as was the trading away of numerous first / early second round picks. This is why we are down now and not because of bad performance in 2004 /2007.

Good summation of the draft periods green machine. Highlighting the drafting from 2000-2002 is important and has been done before on these boards. You've included an interesting exercise from 2004-07, I think it's fair to say we've done ok drafting as in we can see their improvement and their relative progress/development. Picking the eyes out of the draft and nailing someone like Tippett, requires a good eye for talent and perhaps a degree of luck in that particular player coming on, as Tippett has.

My opening post in the following thread "List Management" explains as much with regard to the "timeline" on when our draftees have debuted: -

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17634&st=0&p=276962&hl=Comparitive%20Lists&fromsearch=1entry276962