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.

Thats right and all very well, but many of the really highly talented players have been temperamental & moody.

What I'm saying is the press & the flood are deskilling the game as far as freakish players are concerned. They may not chase as often or may be a bit more inconsistent than your robotic less talented but more reliable flood player.

The game will lose more of it's innate character as we homogenise the recruitment. This is why I had lost interest in cricket over the last 5 to 8 years. It got boring, no character. Too professional, & so became a procession. Golf to.

The sciences improved the abilities of most, but made boring, the game.

Not many will like an army of defenders running about filling space & blocking play to a negativity so uninspiring.

Fluency of play with space to see the freaks play their man one on one... Inspiring. Or to see 2 champs play one another for the whole game... Theres your contest right there.

Not some group of puppeteers pulling the strings up in the box with 4 off & 4 on in one hit, every 3.5 minutes.

Freakishly talented players make low percentage plays pay off regularly. I.e. Franklin's first goal on Sat, Frawley had corralled him into a low percentage zone (boundary 50m out), but Lance snapped it anyway.

Conservative drafting or training creates the backdrop for the freaks to show their skills.

Looking forward to Liam getting back on the field soon...

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....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...

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.

You would be blown away at what some clubs track.

A second by second break down of every potential recruit, a second by second break down of every player on your list & the big one

a second by second break down of every player on other teams list.

Data till you can analyse no more data. Massive bulks on video, broken down frame by frame if thats what you want.

Champion data hehehehehe. They were "Adam" or was it "Eve" ... I can never remember. The times are a changin. Gone are the days of sending a 65 year old bloke to a 18's game with a clipboard & then reporting back "Geez that kid can play he got 25 kicks"

You would be blown away at what some clubs track.

A second by second break down of every potential recruit, a second by second break down of every player on your list & the big one

a second by second break down of every player on other teams list.

Data till you can analyse no more data. Massive bulks on video, broken down frame by frame if thats what you want.

Champion data hehehehehe. They were "Adam" or was it "Eve" ... I can never remember. The times are a changin. Gone are the days of sending a 65 year old bloke to a 18's game with a clipboard & then reporting back "Geez that kid can play he got 25 kicks"

Show me the Bill James.

You can't just expect a recruiter to crunch the data.

Reviewing tapes is not what I am talking about, I am talking about the creation, and application of a stat based science to recruitment, and there is nothing like SABR in AFL footy.

Collingwood have a Senior Football Analyst, but he seems to be, from a basic google search, more focussed on tactics and new technology in footy, not metrics and applying metrics to recruitment.

Show me the Bill James.

You can't just expect a recruiter to crunch the data.

Reviewing tapes is not what I am talking about, I am talking about the creation, and application of a stat based science to recruitment, and there is nothing like SABR in AFL footy.

Collingwood have a Senior Football Analyst, but he seems to be, from a basic google search, more focussed on tactics and new technology in footy, not metrics and applying metrics to recruitment.

Oh but you are wrong great one. Recruiting is no longer left to a single individual. I will leave it at that. Google cant help you - what a surprise!!!!

What I'm saying is the press & the flood are deskilling the game as far as freakish players are concerned.

I don't think it's "deskilling" the game, you can still have your freaks as long as they're more than capable in the areas of the game the coach wants them to adhere to.

There will still be a place for special talents, as long as they can meet the stringent demands such as endurance targets, and the capabilities to play a couple of positions for flexibility.

For example, Neelds plan with Aaron Davey, he wants to take him back to the future for the forward pressure which he was renowned for when he arrived on the scene. Neelds plan may see Aaron limited position wise, because he has limited endurance for the midfield.

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.

2 + 2 would surely hinder player development - some poor buggers will get at most one quarter for weeks on end.

Surely the same effect on 'tiring players' and 'encouraging endurance' would result from a severe limitation on the number of interchanges per quarter, say to 15 or even 12.

And for those who complain about the effects on a team of getting an injury late in a quarter, any interchanges after the limit would be permitted but would in fact be a substitution.

I don't think it's "deskilling" the game, you can still have your freaks as long as they're more than capable in the areas of the game the coach wants them to adhere to.

There will still be a place for special talents, as long as they can meet the stringent demands such as endurance targets, and the capabilities to play a couple of positions for flexibility.

For example, Neelds plan with Aaron Davey, he wants to take him back to the future for the forward pressure which he was renowned for when he arrived on the scene. Neelds plan may see Aaron limited position wise, because he has limited endurance for the midfield.

You can, you can all of that, but last year or the year before it was reported a drop was occurring in attendences.

The supporters are not to be taken lightly, and the game is not as good as it was over 12 years ago.

2 + 2 would surely hinder player development - some poor buggers will get at most one quarter for weeks on end.

Surely the same effect on 'tiring players' and 'encouraging endurance' would result from a severe limitation on the number of interchanges per quarter, say to 15 or even 12.

And for those who complain about the effects on a team of getting an injury late in a quarter, any interchanges after the limit would be permitted but would in fact be a substitution.

What like making inturns work awkward hours & double shifts? Tiring, oh gee. They did it for years & became good Doctors.

The game evolved with space out there, & now there's none. The game grew with 20 players. And now there's 22 down from 23 last year. But no space anywhere.

No Wonder its becoming Basketball.

Oh but you are wrong great one. Recruiting is no longer left to a single individual. I will leave it at that. Google cant help you - what a surprise!!!!

Ok, so we are done?

Happy to discuss metrics in recruitment when it comes back around with anyone.

What like making inturns work awkward hours & double shifts? Tiring, oh gee. They did it for years & became good Doctors.

The game evolved with space out there, & now there's none. The game grew with 20 players. And now there's 22 down from 23 last year. But no space anywhere.

No Wonder its becoming Basketball.

Been there, done that.

I think that you may have misconstrued what I was trying to get at.

I felt the AFL's stated aims of the 2+2 was to tire them out so slow them down - my point was that limiting the interchanges would have the same effect, without leaving some poor guys stranded without any game time, thereby limiting their development.

I wasn't "feeling sorry" at all for those who were out there "getting tired".