Player Development comparisons

[Little Goffy 12,813]

I thought it might be interesting to have a quick look at how Melbourne's 'recruiting and development' has gone in the last few years, compared to the very top lclubs. I've made my own call on whether a player is a 'regular player' or not, and terms like that, but mostly I've tried to let the figures do the talking.

I've picked out the handful of clubs often noted as being the very best at both recruitment and development as a comparison point.

Geelong -

Showed a particular pattern of players not getting even a game in their first season. A couple of young Geelong players have also been stalled a great deal by injury, so a bit hard to assess them.

Mitch Duncan, Taylor Hunt, Stephen Motlop, Allen Christensen and trade-in Josh Caddy appear regulars in the 22, and have accumulated 199 games (for Geelong) between them.

Dan Menzel, Billie Smedts, Cameron Guthrie, Nathan Vardy and now George Horlin-Smith have shown promise but for various reasons are yet to consistently hit AFL level despite all being in the system for a few years now. These young players not yet established in the best 22 have played a total of 119 games.

None of Geelong's 2012 draftees have played a game yet, and the 'class of 2011' has played a total of 30 games, including 8 to mature recruit Orren Stephenson.

Summary

318 games and five current best 22 players under 24 years old.

30 games played current total from 2011 or 2012 drafts.

16 100-game players, including 5 200-game players.

Collingwood

Four players, Beams, Reid, Sidebottom and Blair, share 315 games between them. The younger (20yr) Fasolo adds another 40 games and the entire rest of the Magpies under-24s add another 79 games.

So in five years of drafts, Collingwood have produced four, maybe five 'best 22' players, with a couple of wait-and-see ruckmen in Grundy and Witts.

Fair to say that while Sidebottom delivered right away, Beams, Reid, Blair and Fasolo owe a lot to the 'Pies development programs. But the latter three may also owe a lot to the fact that they could be role-players filling our a star-quality core.

Jack Frost with two games joins Sam Dwyer (26yrs) and veteran Ben Hudson as the only players from the 2012 draft to play so far for Collingwood.

From 2011, Jackson Paine, Marley Williams and Caoeln Mooney have played 6, 6, and 4 games.

Summary -

398 games played and five best 22 players under 24.

25 games total so far from 2012 and 2011 drafts.

17 100-game players, including 4 200-game players.

Sydney

The extent to which Sydney has progressed recently without any input from recent drafts is significant. Dane Rampe, with 3 games, is the only Sydney 2012 draft selection to make a debut so far. From 2011, Harry Cunningham has played 1 game.

Of players under 24 years of age, Lewis Jetta, Daniel Hannebery, Sam Reid, Alex Johnson, and Luke Parker appear to be regular 22 contributors, and have accumulated 275 games between them. Other under 24, including Gary Rohan with 22, have played a total of 52 games.

Summary -

327 games played and 5 regular players under 24.

4 games played to date, from 2012 and 2011 drafts.

13 100-game players, including 4 200-game players.

Hawthorn

Cyril Rioli's instant impact has allowed him to accumulate 111 games to date, leading other young regular players Luke Bruest, Shane Savage, Ryan Shoenmakers, Brendan Whitecross, Liam Shiels and Jack Gunston. These seven players combine for a total of 444 games.

Other players under 23, including trade-in Kyle Cheney who has played 14 games for Hawthorn, total 29 games.

Summary -

473 games played, including 7 regular players.

13 games from 2011 and 2012 drafts, which does not include Luke Bruest, promoted rookie originally drafted in 2010

14 100-game players, including 4 200-game players.

Melbourne

So where does that leave Melbourne?

Jack Grimes and Jack Trengove lead Melbourne's group of young regular players which includes Jeremy Howe, Tom McDonald, Jordie McKenzie and Jack Watts. Between the 6 of them, they share 305 games at Melbourne. Yes, I know a bunch of you hate x, y and z, but there they are 'regular 22' the same way Joel MacDonald is one of our '100-game plus' players.

Muddying the waters is the pattern of injury delays (Strauss, Blease, Gawn, Tapscott) and intermittent presence of players not quite ready or not quite right. As a result, the number of games played by those not yet regular players is 180 games. This total from non-established players is greater than all four teams mentioned above, with Geelong the bulk of that due to their somewhat similar young injury mix.

Trading of a high pick to acquire Mitch Clark and the use of a top pick to acquire Jesse Hogan also means that the Demon's use of new young recruits from the 2011-12 drafts is surprisingly light. (Sellar has not been included)

Summary -

485 games played, including 6 confirmed regulars.

45 games from 2011 and 2012 drafts.

8 100-game players, including 0 200 game players.

Melbourne have an nominal 14 positions to fill from their list of players with less than 100 games, compared to 8, 9, 5 and 6 for the four other teams mentioned.

Despite the use of two first round picks to acquire Mitch Clark and then Jesse Hogan, Melbourne have put 50% more games into 2011/12year draftees than even Geelong, who have been forced by injuries to their 20-23 year olds to experiment with the next tier.

Melbourne are the only club in this selection which has used 2012 draftees for a combined total of more than 2 games so far in 2013.

Melbourne have produced 'regular 22' players at about the same rate as all four of the top clubs mentioned here. Unfortunately, while this leaves the other clubs with between two to four positions to fill with untried kids, Melbourne must still fill 8 or 9 positions in this way. More than a third of the players taking the field.

In short, Melbourne need to add at least 5 extra players to the list of authentic 'regular 22' players in order to match the stability and baseline competence of the top 'development' clubs, let alone the overall performance.

To grasp how different the experience levels are, and the point at which on-field responsibility comes in, imagine you only had to include just six players from our entire list of under-100 gamers, and that was what decided our quality.

What if Geelong's under-100 gamers were Clarke, Howe, Grimes, Trengove, Viney, and Gawn? The rest of the kids would be playing VFL and focused completely on development, instead of having another five out there struggling.

[Pates 9,541]

I understand what you're trying to say but the major difference they have apart from facilities (before we got to AAMI) and people is that they have a successful team so their young players are made to earn games and they also have these great players around to mentor them.

In a sense I think that is what Neeld was trying to create in some ways with the likes of Rodan, Byrnes and Pederson. Get people in that can almost walk into a team and make the younger players earn their spot. I don't think it's a complete failure in that idea as players like Kent have been made to wait and dominate at Casey.

To me I think the issue is the step up into AFL, it's partially to do with the fact that when they come in we need then to have an impact because the current senior crop is doing sweet F-all.

This goes back to another thread (Eat our young) about how we bring the kids in at such an early stage and not just expect them to have an impact but need them to. It seems to me to be a revolving door system until we get one or two out and out guns that lift the team around team.

A settled team creates competition for spots, we're not even close to settled.

[Little Goffy 12,813]

The contrast I find most telling is the one that illustrates your point, Pates. While our young players who have basically established themselves in the team only total about the same number of games as the other teams, we then have a huge number of games played by kids who, in any of the four mentioned above, would still be hoping for an opportunity to come up.

Bringing in the more mature players I think is a sensible move, especially when you consider we actually only broke even on experience differences 2012/2013, but it only works if those players you bring in are going to actually be regular starters. At the moment, Gillies, Pederson and even Rodan look like being 'in and out' all season at most. You'd assume Dawes would be a regular if not for injury.

Four years from now, we may well have 15+ experienced, hardened and legitimate best-22 players. But a waiting game that long is plainly not acceptable.

I'd consider this year a 'development success' if we can get five more players to lift enough to be consistently AFL standard.

[Cheap Seats 3,303]

I'd consider this year a 'development success' if we can get five more players to lift enough to be consistently AFL standard.

Great post

I especially like the comment included in the quote. I'd reckon you'd struggle to name any more then 2 - 4 MFC players you can say have preformed week in week out at AFL level over the past few years