Recruiting. I've heard Paul Roos, James Hird, Mark Neeld and a few others speak of recruiters now recruiting those who will more likely tick all the boxes to suit game plans.

I speak of: -

* Tackling (incl. technique)/ pressure

* Endurance

* Strong minded (more likely to adhere to instructions)

These are just a few aspects. And I've just heard Eddie McGuire recently will be putting on a story this Sunday night about "Conservatism". In football circles it's now becoming more common pratice to recruit footballers that will tick the above boxes, those overlooked could be those not involved in the tac cup system, or those that don't meet standards of endurance, or those that aren't inclined to produce good tackling and consistent pressure or have trouble following instructions and game plan.

The likes of Roos, Neeld, McGuire, Hird all alluded to the future of recruiting, Roos even mentioned that given the contested nature, zoning, forward pressure and the ability to be switched on in today's game with endurance, indigenous Australians will need to tick all boxes to be in recruiters sights.

Makes a lot of sense, that is picking players to play a particular role.

I remember during the Bailey era when we had the top draft picks, it was always 'get the best available'.

Recruiting. I've heard Paul Roos, James Hird, Mark Neeld and a few others speak of recruiters now recruiting those who will more likely tick all the boxes to suit game plans.

I speak of: -

* Tackling (incl. technique)/ pressure

* Endurance

* Strong minded (more likely to adhere to instructions)

These are just a few aspects. And I've just heard Eddie McGuire recently will be putting on a story this Sunday night about "Conservatism". In football circles it's now becoming more common pratice to recruit footballers that will tick the above boxes, those overlooked could be those not involved in the tac cup system, or those that don't meet standards of endurance, or those that aren't inclined to produce good tackling and consistent pressure or have trouble following instructions and game plan.

The likes of Roos, Neeld, McGuire, Hird all alluded to the future of recruiting, Roos even mentioned that given the contested nature, zoning, forward pressure and the ability to be switched on in today's game with endurance, indigenous Australians will need to tick all boxes to be in recruiters sights.

This is the Danger of the 'Too Many Interchage Rotations', it's changing the nature of the game & the player types recruited.

We'll lose the GAbletts snr, Locketts, SJohnstones, etc, where recruiters won't want to take the chance on the Freaks of Nature.

To the Eternal detriment of the game.

I'm liking 2 + 2 more & more.

Thanks HT.

It certainly appears to be reflected in our current coach's philosophy as well. Still to achieve the pinnacle you need to have a Franklin, Goodes, Steve Johnson etc. That is just a few blokes who may not have ticked all the boxes in their early days.

I don't believe it has anything to do with 2 and 2 or 3 and 1 or if it was 10 and 3 !

From my understanding on what they've said is that you could kick goals out of your backside now and then, but if you cannot or are not capable to do the work required on the training track with the team, or follow basic instructions , or have a good understanding of what is required when the ball is coming out from a kick in after a behind to the opposition, lack leadership. Or run and harass as required for 20 mins non stop in a game by being accountable - you're unlikely to get a look in by recruiters.

Because they are instructed to recruit conservatively and not take risks.

It's sort of the "Moneyball" approach.

For those who haven't seen the film, Moneyball is about a baseball team that changes recruitment philosophy from "young, up and coming stars" (think AFL draft camp best performers) to experienced players who score highly in particular areas ("needs based recruitment"). I probably haven't quite explained it properly, but hopefully readers will get the idea.

I don't believe it has anything to do with 2 and 2 or 3 and 1 or if it was 10 and 3 !

From my understanding on what they've said is that you could kick goals out of your backside now and then, but if you cannot or are not capable to do the work required on the training track with the team, or follow basic instructions , or have a good understanding of what is required when the ball is coming out from a kick in after a behind to the opposition, lack leadership. Or run and harass as required for 20 mins non stop in a game by being accountable - you're unlikely to get a look in by recruiters.

Because they are instructed to recruit conservatively and not take risks.

Would you agree that you can only recruit conservatively up to a point, and after this point every pick turns out to be a risk? There is no saying that if you recruit conservatively every player that you recruit will make it. Sure, they may have more chance of making it, but sometimes you need to recruit players with 'flair' or players that lack certain attributes but have other areas of their game that stand out.

Thanks HT.

It certainly appears to be reflected in our current coach's philosophy as well. Still to achieve the pinnacle you need to have a Franklin, Goodes, Steve Johnson etc. That is just a few blokes who may not have ticked all the boxes in their early days.

There no doubt will be the odd exception. The 3 guys you mentioned followed the Tac Cup pathway and are superb footballers and elite in their own way. Goodes and Franklin are the prototype forward with great endurance with the ability to play various positions given their athletic capabilities. Goodes dominated in his TAC Cup Grand Final so he wasnt really hard to miss and quite frankly a low risk for a recruiter.

It's sort of the "Moneyball" approach.

For those who haven't seen the film, Moneyball is about a baseball team that changes recruitment philosophy from "young, up and coming stars" (think AFL draft camp best performers) to experienced players who score highly in particular areas ("needs based recruitment"). I probably haven't quite explained it properly, but hopefully readers will get the idea.

Certainly understand it from a mature rookie perspective. Have not seen the movie yet, definitely will see it though.

It's sort of the "Moneyball" approach.

For those who haven't seen the film, Moneyball is about a baseball team that changes recruitment philosophy from "young, up and coming stars" (think AFL draft camp best performers) to experienced players who score highly in particular areas ("needs based recruitment"). I probably haven't quite explained it properly, but hopefully readers will get the idea.

Sabermetrics is great for baseball but can it translate to footy so easily?

I don't think it can.

Because it isn't as simple as 'needs' over 'best available' it's being able to have empirical eveidence backing a reason for a player to be recruited. The example in the film was On Base Percentage and they recruited players who excel at getting on base.

We have KPIs and it isn't difficult to imagine clubs saying 'we need more contested possessions won so we should recruit heavy contested possie winners from the VFL' - I think that is what the MFC did with Magner and Couch...

But baseball relies on a series of individual acts that can be measured, footy relies on a chain of events for players to be effective. ie. forwards rely on quality and quantity of delivery, backs rely on the opposite.

Anyway, food for thought.

Sabermetrics is great for baseball but can it translate to footy so easily?

I don't think it can.

Because it isn't as simple as 'needs' over 'best available' it's being able to have empirical eveidence backing a reason for a player to be recruited. The example in the film was On Base Percentage and they recruited players who excel at getting on base.

We have KPIs and it isn't difficult to imagine clubs saying 'we need more contested possessions won so we should recruit heavy contested possie winners from the VFL' - I think that is what the MFC did with Magner and Couch...

But baseball relies on a series of individual acts that can be measured, footy relies on a chain of events for players to be effective. ie. forwards rely on quality and quantity of delivery, backs rely on the opposite.

Anyway, food for thought.

Well reasoned and articulated.

There no doubt will be the odd exception. The 3 guys you mentioned followed the Tac Cup pathway and are superb footballers and elite in their own way. Goodes and Franklin are the prototype forward with great endurance with the ability to play various positions given their athletic capabilities. Goodes dominated in his TAC Cup Grand Final so he wasnt really hard to miss and quite frankly a low risk for a recruiter.

Still they were all "incomplete" footballers. There will always be a place for taking a player who needs work be it on his game or character.

Not that I am an investor but it's akin to having a portfolio, with your blue chip stocks and some speculative higher risk, greater reward stuff.

Sabermetrics is great for baseball but can it translate to footy so easily?

Yes. (No need to mince my words)

I don't think it can.

You are behind the times.

Recruiting is "maturing" you learn from overseas and you adapt. However, the average punter who basically only watches one team just struggle with the key component of recruiting. Its not just the player as such it how you develop them to fit inside your structures. Essentially what role/s you give them at the highest level. Its not the starting point that counts its the finishing point.

But you are right about one thing - It will be food for thought for some.

All football players are incomplete. But some fit a particular game plan better than others.

Allen Jackovich, Russell Robertson and Adem Yze (to name just three) wold have had a hard time under Neeld and Craig.

And John Northey would have loved James Magner (and he put up with Jackovich!!!)

ps: can anyone remember Jackovich "chasing".

All football players are incomplete. But some fit a particular game plan better than others.

Allen Jackovich, Russell Robertson and Adem Yze (to name just three) wold have had a hard time under Neeld and Craig.

And John Northey would have loved James Magner (and he put up with Jackovich!!!)

ps: can anyone remember Jackovich "chasing".

Different game, different time

All football players are incomplete. But some fit a particular game plan better than others.

Allen Jackovich, Russell Robertson and Adem Yze (to name just three) wold have had a hard time under Neeld and Craig.

And John Northey would have loved James Magner (and he put up with Jackovich!!!)

ps: can anyone remember Jackovich "chasing".

This is probably old fashion but if you kick 6+ goals a game I could not care if you ever chase .

6 x 22 = 132 PA.

Let the defenders chase you.

Yes I am from a different time.

Different game, different time

Exactly - in today's footy, there's no way that the forward press would allow him room or the one-on-one.

Yes. (No need to mince my words)

You are behind the times.

Recruiting is "maturing" you learn from overseas and you adapt. However, the average punter who basically only watches one team just struggle with the key component of recruiting. Its not just the player as such it how you develop them to fit inside your structures. Essentially what role/s you give them at the highest level. Its not the starting point that counts its the finishing point.

But you are right about one thing - It will be food for thought for some.

As I don't like to be accused of being 'behind the times' could you please give a small snapshot of a SABR-like (http://sabr.org/about) metric that can be used in footy?

Remember, we are not talking about generalities; we are talking about the application of particular statistics that can be tied to performance, and measure performance of individuals, in and around the AFL.

Its not the starting point that counts its the finishing point.

If they don't get anywhere near the finish point as was envisaged by the average recruiting punter after "maturing", you've got to ask yourself, what could we have done better at the starting point. So what counts ?

Maybe a few boxes weren't ticked off.

As I don't like to be accused of being 'behind the times' could you please give a small snapshot of a SABR-like (http://sabr.org/about) metric that can be used in footy?

Remember, we are not talking about generalities; we are talking about the application of particular statistics that can be tied to performance, and measure performance of individuals, in and around the AFL.

"anyone interested in baseball can join. While the original purpose of SABR was to band together baseball historians, statisticians and researchers, it is not necessary to engage in research to become a member."

I will rewrite it for you -

anyone interested in baseball football can join. While the original purpose of "group" was to band together baseball football historians, statisticians and researchers, it is not necessary to engage in research to become a member.

Essentially you take a wide band of passionate interested individuals and you work-shop their skills & adapt to Australian football. The more diverse the group the better. Essentially your starting point is "Statistical Analysis" but it goes much deeper than that.

I can share with you a little secret. Some clubs are already well down the path, their "Statistical Analysis" would blow your mind away - and its not just on-field performance. However, they are now going deeper, much, much deeper. The have a wide band of interested parties that have a passion for the "game/team" and use their knowledge in field x and adapt. Doctors, lawyers, sales people, high level management ... you name it.

​Currently, its being lead by the club/s internally in an effort to get a competitive advantage. But that may change. The AFL may take an overall competition perspective. Currently the AFL do have some groups that do "share" information. I'm just not sure how well that works ie would you get the whole "truth". Clubs only seem interested in sharing to a point, due to their "tribal" type mentality. Also probably why many on here would struggle to see the benefits because of their "tribal" mentality.

If they don't get anywhere near the finish point as was envisaged by the average recruiting punter after "maturing", youve got to ask yourself, what could we have done better at the starting point. So what counts ?

Maybe a few boxes weren't ticked off.

or did you not spend enough money in development stage?

Remember, it can be a business of probabilities. You can play your cards 100% correctly and still lose. You have to invest to make sure you have played your cards 100% correctly.

​Currently, its being lead by the club/s internally in an effort to get a competitive advantage. But that may change. The AFL may take an overall competition perspective. Currently the AFL do have some groups that do "share" information. I'm just not sure how well that works ie would you get the whole "truth". Clubs only seem interested in sharing to a point, due to their "tribal" type mentality. Also probably why many on here would struggle to see the benefits because of their "tribal" mentality.

The clubs are intricate with their sport science but analytics is different to that.

A measurement that I would look at might surround contested possessions. If a player gets 66% of his possies in contested situations some clubs will look at that and say 'we can count on him to be hard at the footy and improve us in that area.'

But what if he gets 14 of his 21 touches in contested situations because he is prolific in close but doesn't run enough to pick up uncontested possies? What if the league he is playing in isn't a league as worthy as the AFL or even VFL, SANFL (Howe comes to mind here from the Tassie league, Bail from the QFL)?

I haven't heard of a Bill James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_James) being hired by clubs just yet, and CEO's haven't gone all Billy Beane either (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Beane) so I don't think Champion Data have cracked the algorithms yet...

Look, I agree that we are headed to more analysis of lists to better the recruitment of players but as I said - baseball is an individual based team sport and players don't rely on others for their statistical performance. A batter can get on base, get RBIs, hit homers, and steal bases all by himself (the act of RBIs, not the lead up of course). But a footy player relies on others to get him the footy, or keep it out of the hands of their opponents.

I picked contested possessions because it is the closest thing that a footy player does by himself but even that is difficult to properly measure across teams and leagues.

I haven't heard of a Bill James (http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Bill_James) being hired by clubs just yet, and CEO's haven't gone all Billy Beane either (http://en.wikipedia....iki/Billy_Beane) so I don't think Champion Data have cracked the algorithms yet...

Interesting you say that, because I read Moneyball many years ago, and all that I could think when seeing whiteboard Wednesdays and listening to Bailey rattle on about quarters won, games played and weight of premiership sides, etc was that they thought they were the Australian equivalent of Billy Beane. Sadly they were very wrong.

Stats have come a long way, and to a degree they are already being used in recruiting. Maric was recruited for having the highest kicking efficiency in the TAC cup (can't see another reason).

Interesting you say that, because I read Moneyball many years ago, and all that I could think when seeing whiteboard Wednesdays and listening to Bailey rattle on about quarters won, games played and weight of premiership sides, etc was that they thought they were the Australian equivalent of Billy Beane. Sadly they were very wrong.

Stats have come a long way, and to a degree they are already being used in recruiting. Maric was recruited for having the highest kicking efficiency in the TAC cup (can't see another reason).

I would argue that those measurements wouldn't scratch the surface of the metrics used by SABR.

And for the equivalent to be used in footy it wouldn't simply be a case of recruiting Maric because Champion Data said he was the straightest kick for goal - it would be a Non-Tactical Football Analyst coming to the coach and saying 'we have an issue where our small forwards are missing more shots than the industry norm, we need to find an immediate replacement for Forward Pocket in the draft. Let's look at Maric and groom him for that role right away.'

Problem is - I don't think we are there yet, and our system brings more youngsters with less exposed form than their baseball equivalents. You can ply your trade for 6 or 7 years from the draft before going into the AFL-equivalent (MLB).

So the AFL-Analyst model lends itself to finding periphery players playing in lower leagues with exposed and transferable form lines.

So there is the answer - if you are unearthing more periphery players than integral players - there isn't a great deal of sex appeal to clubs.

This is probably old fashion but if you kick 6+ goals a game I could not care if you ever chase .

6 x 22 = 132 PA.

Let the defenders chase you.

Yes I am from a different time.

A good attacking defender will cut an opposition to pieces. It's important to chase, but also to tackle and bury your opponent as hard as you can get away with.