Now I don't consider my self to be old enough to be considered wise.

But.

I'm getting very sceptical of how complicated things have become in AFL.

Pages and pages of stats sheets. Pre game, 1/4 time, half time, 3/4 time, after the game. And full of every conceivable stat you could think of. Metres gained, contested possessions in the forward 50, hitouts in the first half of a 1/4 compared to the second half of a 1/4, 1%ers on Sundays with a NW wind compared to on a Saturday with a SW wind. FMD how complicated is it?

I can't wait for a coach to ditch this ridiculous over-analysis crap, screw up the stats sheet and start telling the players how it is.

First to the ball, run past with a voice, kick it to the boundary if there's nobody in the clear, hit a target if they're open, move the ball forward, tackle hard, play in front in the wet, be accountable to your man on a turnover. Why does it have to be so scrutinised all the time. Coaches, and players, don't need damning stats to tell them who's played well. If they don't know that walking off the ground then there is something seriously wrong.

And drafting. OMG can we get rid of the absurd psychoanalysis rubbish? They didn't do this 20 or even 10 years ago but good players kept getting drafted back then. Is there a higher success rate for drafted players since this rubbish came in? I wouldn't think so. Forget the draft combine and testing. Go watch the kids play. Surely you could get more out of watching a draftee play a full game or two than you can from looking at their times running through laser timers and touching vertical jump tabs. It's sports science gone mad.

Can he play? Is he hard at the ball? Does he have game pace? (Not this Jack Watts sprint testing bollocks. Actual 'game' pace). Can he hold a contested overhead mark? Does he chase on a turnover?

I'm just so sick of the micro-analysis in this sport. We're not trying to find a gifted athlete to shave 0.001 seconds off of a 100m sprinting record. It's football. It's a team game and the same old skills and effort win games now like they did way back when MFC were a good team.

Stats lie.

agree 100% ... you can have more scoring shots, yet lose inside 50s count 34-60.

Kicking efficiency - kick it backwards. Chip. Chip. Chip. Turnover. 80% efficiency... 100% dumb.

Stats don't measure lack of pressure and intensity. Jack Watts falls over in contests... no stats on that.

How many times do you see a passage of play where a player gets 3, 4 or even 5 disposal stats when the ball has essentially gone nowhere?

eg: Terlich and McDonald on Sunday. Now that was face palm worthy.

Agree with OP, I find the overuse of stats in footy to be absurd and a real americanisation of the sport

How many times do you see a passage of play where a player gets 3, 4 or even 5 disposal stats when the ball has essentially gone nowhere?

eg: Terlich and McDonald on Sunday. Now that was face palm worthy.

And Jones who runs in circles hand passing trying to get his mates into the game. 6 disposals on the sheet not one mm closer to goals Dumb and Dumber. He hand passes when he should kick

Of course Stats in isolation don't tell a story. Statistics need to form part of an overall picture. Roos in his presser said that our problem was not in getting to contests and winning them - it was what we did with the ball after we got it. The stats bears out that on Sunday we did well in contested footy. Our eyes bear out that we butchered the ball like 8 year old suburban footballers.

Agree with your sentiments big fella.

One thing that irks me to no end is hearing Kevin 'shifter' Sheehan bang on about potential draftees who are 'elite' in a particular non-football specific area. Like the 20 meter sprint as you rightly pointed out.

He is one who pays far too much importance on that nonsense.

You're absolutely right, the micro-analysis is bordering on absurd.

I'm sure it would confuse recruiters to no end when they've come up with a list of players pre combine testing, and then they see how those players go in isolated movement testing and it throws a spanner in the works as they'll start second guessing who's a better pick.

Agree with your sentiments big fella.

One thing that irks me to no end is hearing Kevin 'shifter' Sheehan bang on about potential draftees who are 'elite' in a particular non-football specific area. Like the 20 meter sprint as you rightly pointed out.

He is one who pays far too much importance on that nonsense.

You're absolutely right, the micro-analysis is bordering on absurd.

I'm sure it would confuse recruiters to no end when they've come up with a list of players pre combine testing, and then they see how those players go in isolated movement testing and it throws a spanner in the works as they'll start second guessing who's a better pick.

I don't think it would with the good recruiters (probably has with ours) but then again when you see players like Barlow slip through you must wonder.

I don't think it would with the good recruiters (probably has with ours) but then again when you see players like Barlow slip through you must wonder.

Roos pointed out the number one problem recruiters face in an interview earlier this year. The TAC is the best underage competition in the land HOWEVER the gulf between TAC and AFL is immense. Roos mentioned that players learn little defensively and they have an eternity to dispose of the ball in many situations as opposed to the pressure in the AFL. This time difference can hide a myriad of problems in terms of decision making and disposal. Roos concluded that the real learning for TAC footballers only starts when they get to the AFL system. Recruiting is so far away from exact science - it amuses me when we compare players after a season or two and conclude we should have know better at time of recruiting.

Go through every club - they all have stories of how they got some recruiting decisions so horribly wrong.

Roos pointed out the number one problem recruiters face in an interview earlier this year. The TAC is the best underage competition in the land HOWEVER the gulf between TAC and AFL is immense. Roos mentioned that players learn little defensively and they have an eternity to dispose of the ball in many situations as opposed to the pressure in the AFL. This time difference can hide a myriad of problems in terms of decision making and disposal. Roos concluded that the real learning for TAC footballers only starts when they get to the AFL system. Recruiting is so far away from exact science - it amuses me when we compare players after a season or two and conclude we should have know better at time of recruiting.

Go through every club - they all have stories of how they got some recruiting decisions so horribly wrong.

This is not what was being discussed. There is no doubt recruiting is an inexact science the points being made are that some may try to make it more exact with stats over their own abilities to spot a good player. One of the things I always liked about the Geelong model was Wells had good old Bill McMaster in the background and probably still does. Can't beat an experienced eye.

Funnily enough I only care about one set of numbers - the final score.

The one thing I don't understand is why if we get someone with the ball in the middle they always look for a handball to get a clean possession. We then over possess and lose it. Watch any one of Geelong, Hawks, Sydney etc. If they don't win it cleanly they will always get it moving forward and know the players further up field will compete.

I know getting a clean clearance is ideal but it's not always going to happen so sometimes we've just got to get it moving in our direction!

This is not what was being discussed. There is no doubt recruiting is an inexact science the points being made are that some may try to make it more exact with stats over their own abilities to spot a good player. One of the things I always liked about the Geelong model was Wells had good old Bill McMaster in the background and probably still does. Can't beat an experienced eye.

I would agree with you if I thought for a moment that recruiters relied too heavily on testing , stats , combines etc. I posted about a month ago that I was walking my dogs past the Oakleigh chargers ground and there was a pick up match between the Vic metro squad - so basically a training session. There were 8 club recruiters there that I could actually identify - I am sure there were others there that I didn't necessarily see.

There is an enormous amount of time put in by all clubs in actually watching these boys play regularly. I think the draft camp is more about talking to players you have not yet talked to and maybe seeing some lower round draft "smokies". I would suggest that the top of the draft order is well sorted prior to the camp. The camp is more about making up your mind between two players that you may have already earmarked.

Recruiters do rely on the eye rather than these stats and camps but psychological testing is becoming more and more important (lol at amount of people who wanted Gartlett at the MFC).

All this not withstanding - the comments regarding the gulf between TAC and AFL still is relevant and can make absolutely mockery of a "good eye".

All this not withstanding - the comments regarding the gulf between TAC and AFL still is relevant and can make absolutely mockery of a "good eye".

Would really like to have an experienced eye though 'nutbean'. How do you think it would be having say a Northey at the championships looking over the kids with a critical eye, might just bring up a few things others miss to go into the pot.

psychological testing is becoming more and more important (lol at amount of people who wanted Gartlett at the MFC).

I don't think it required any psychological testing to work out Garlett. Might need to test those on here who wanted him though.

Would really like to have an experienced eye though 'nutbean'. How do you think it would be having say a Northey at the championships looking over the kids with a critical eye, might just bring up a few things others miss to go into the pot.

I don't think it required any psychological testing to work out Garlett. Might need to test those on here who wanted him though.

The more astute the recruiter the better the result but I still use Scully as perfect example. He was touted as a number one draft pick at the age of 16 by everyone - I am not sure I can remember a more certain lock for number one as Scully. Described as a machine - in his early training sessions with us they had to hold him back as he was going too hard. Yes, there was a slight knock on his kicking but it was more than compensated by his apparent ability to get to so many contests and impact them. Many may want to suggest that his heart wasnt in at the Dees but he has hardly set the world on fire at GWS. He may still come good but the bottom line is that 4 years on - his junior form has absolutely not translated at AFL level. The most outstanding part of Scully's non performance is apparently the biggest tick for him was his attitude and will to succeed. This was absent with us and just as absent with GWS

There are many examples of highly touted juniors who just have not gone on at AFL level and conversely there are many that had average wraps on them that have excelled in the big time. What really miffs me is many posters who don't want to understand that there is sometimes no correlation between between TAC form and AFL form. Is Martin a better footballer than Scully at this stage and possibly for his career - absolutely no doubt. Anyone suggesting that this outcome was known at the time of drafting and we should have drafted Martin is kidding themselves. Even the whole Toumpas vs Wines debate has me scratching my head. For the whole of the final year it was reported by all TAC watchers that Toumpas was between picks 2-4 and Wines was around the 5 plus mark. Toumpas was higher rated at the time. There is no evidence to the contrary. Is Wines a better footballer here and now than Toumpas - definitely. Will Wines be better over his career - who knows but guessing - probably. But at the time of drafting Toumpas was rated higher. So in hindsight we should have taken Wines but at the time the selection was correct ( as opposed to Cook and Strauss who were taken way too early).

To those who say - I always rated Wines higher than Toumpas I say congratulations - get a job as a recruiter because you know better than all the other current recruiters.

Posted it before, Greg Wells the genius recruiter at Geelong has 10 rules for drafting. Rule 1. Player must be prepared to put his head over the ball sadly I cannot remember the rest but they relate to ability to kick, run, mark over head that alone would exclude some of our recruits

Now I don't consider my self to be old enough to be considered wise.

But.

I'm getting very sceptical of how complicated things have become in AFL.

Pages and pages of stats sheets. Pre game, 1/4 time, half time, 3/4 time, after the game. And full of every conceivable stat you could think of. Metres gained, contested possessions in the forward 50, hitouts in the first half of a 1/4 compared to the second half of a 1/4, 1%ers on Sundays with a NW wind compared to on a Saturday with a SW wind. FMD how complicated is it?

I can't wait for a coach to ditch this ridiculous over-analysis crap, screw up the stats sheet and start telling the players how it is.

OMG the unemployed just rose by 35%, if that kicked in.

Apart from that I totally agree. Unruled, overgoverned,over analysed and almost over it.

See ball, get ball, kick ball, score goal, anything gets in the way steam roll it.

The more astute the recruiter the better the result but I still use Scully as perfect example. He was touted as a number one draft pick at the age of 16 by everyone - I am not sure I can remember a more certain lock for number one as Scully. Described as a machine - in his early training sessions with us they had to hold him back as he was going too hard. Yes, there was a slight knock on his kicking but it was more than compensated by his apparent ability to get to so many contests and impact them. Many may want to suggest that his heart wasnt in at the Dees but he has hardly set the world on fire at GWS. He may still come good but the bottom line is that 4 years on - his junior form has absolutely not translated at AFL level. The most outstanding part of Scully's non performance is apparently the biggest tick for him was his attitude and will to succeed. This was absent with us and just as absent with GWS

There are many examples of highly touted juniors who just have not gone on at AFL level and conversely there are many that had average wraps on them that have excelled in the big time. What really miffs me is many posters who don't want to understand that there is sometimes no correlation between between TAC form and AFL form. Is Martin a better footballer than Scully at this stage and possibly for his career - absolutely no doubt. Anyone suggesting that this outcome was known at the time of drafting and we should have drafted Martin is kidding themselves. Even the whole Toumpas vs Wines debate has me scratching my head. For the whole of the final year it was reported by all TAC watchers that Toumpas was between picks 2-4 and Wines was around the 5 plus mark. Toumpas was higher rated at the time. There is no evidence to the contrary. Is Wines a better footballer here and now than Toumpas - definitely. Will Wines be better over his career - who knows but guessing - probably. But at the time of drafting Toumpas was rated higher. So in hindsight we should have taken Wines but at the time the selection was correct ( as opposed to Cook and Strauss who were taken way too early).

To those who say - I always rated Wines higher than Toumpas I say congratulations - get a job as a recruiter because you know better than all the other current recruiters.

Without needing explicit proof, but just from a guess, would you say that a higher % of draftees 'make it' now in comparison to before the process got so pedantic?

Without needing explicit proof, but just from a guess, would you say that a higher % of draftees 'make it' now in comparison to before the process got so pedantic?

I would think so - but with the emphasis and dollars spent on recruiting there is an expectation that it should be so. With this expectation, when a high draft pick underperforms there is now more "spotlight" on them than ever before.

I would definitely say that clubs are much more informed and have more insight into the draftees - the major problem will always exist that there is such a gulf between the AFL and all feeder competitions ( be it TAC ,SANFL, VFL etc) the huge question mark will be - can the player produce the same skills, pressure, hardness at the highest level. The game is infinitely quicker, the bodies bigger and pressure much more intense and physical at AFL level - many do continue to progress and improve and their attributes make the transition - some don't. We have had more than our fair shares of "some don't".

(I have also posted many times that successful clubs on and off field both in terms of coaching, development, stability and superior lists make this transition infinitely easier)

Mrtwister - one more factor. Supporters have also developed an impatience in regards to draftees producing quality football early. Most have forgotten that the kids still have young underdeveloped bodies, undeveloped tanks and skillsets. We have also seen over numerous years that the bigger key position players and ruckman take even longer to develop. We get footballers like Wines that are ready from day one and any other footballer that isn't as developed or producing from day one is automatically lambasted because of it.

With the Wines debate - why are people limiting the discussion to our mistake - if you extend the logic that he definitely should have been taken instead of Toumpas - then he shouldn't have been available at our pick - Wines has been far superior to the GWS picks before us - he should have gone to GWS.

In a professional sport, doesn't it make sense that people responsible for the management of high performance teams want metrics to measure their teams on? This isn't 'Americanisation' of the sport - whatever the hell that means - it's just bog standard performance reporting in a professional environment.

I agree that it's complicated and sometimes far too hard for the layman to make head or tail of all the information, but that's surely all part of the fun? If not, there's always the option of just tuning out. I certainly don't agree that the data is all worthless just because I don't always understand it, which the OP seems to be suggesting.

In a professional sport, doesn't it make sense that people responsible for the management of high performance teams want metrics to measure their teams on? This isn't 'Americanisation' of the sport - whatever the hell that means - it's just bog standard performance reporting in a professional environment.

I agree that it's complicated and sometimes far too hard for the layman to make head or tail of all the information, but that's surely all part of the fun? If not, there's always the option of just tuning out. I certainly don't agree that the data is all worthless just because I don't always understand it, which the OP seems to be suggesting.

I'm not suggesting it's all worthless. I just don't get the massive emphasis on testing results for 30m sprints and vertical jumps etc.

The beep test I agree with as a VO2 max is a scientific, physiological measurement that can indicate a starting point for training/positional purposes.

The others not so much. A draftee's ability to run quickly, dodge or jump on a nice flat indoor surface with runners on in a closed-skill environment can have zero impact on their ability to dodge tackles, clear stoppages and take contested marks.

I'm not suggesting it's all worthless. I just don't get the massive emphasis on testing results for 30m sprints and vertical jumps etc.

The beep test I agree with as a VO2 max is a scientific, physiological measurement that can indicate a starting point for training/positional purposes.

The others not so much. A draftee's ability to run quickly, dodge or jump on a nice flat indoor surface with runners on in a closed-skill environment can have zero impact on their ability to dodge tackles, clear stoppages and take contested marks.

But you are assuming that there is a massive emphasis on these things.

I suggested before that recruiters have done their homework way before the draft camp and these tests may highlight what the recruiters already know from watching games.

Until we know what weight the recruiters place on the "tests" then we are guessing as to their worth.

I have heard many posters bring up that such and such had the highest leap at draft camp to push the draftees case but to date I haven't heard a recruiter suggest that a draftee was recruited because of draft camp testing.

But you are assuming that there is a massive emphasis on these things.

I suggested before that recruiters have done their homework way before the draft camp and these tests may highlight what the recruiters already know from watching games.

Until we know what weight the recruiters place on the "tests" then we are guessing as to their worth.

I have heard many posters bring up that such and such had the highest leap at draft camp to push the draftees case but to date I haven't heard a recruiter suggest that a draftee was recruited because of draft camp testing.

Agreed. I have no doubt that the good recruiters are well aware of a draftee's abilities before the testings. I think it's more the media? or observers? or even supporters? that make a point of emphasis to the results without realising that at the end of the day, the indications from these mean almost sweet FA to their ability to actually play the game.

I don't think we have differing views on the topic, maybe I haven't explained it properly. (The Mrs has suggested this many times before )

The more astute the recruiter the better the result but I still use Scully as perfect example. He was touted as a number one draft pick at the age of 16 by everyone - I am not sure I can remember a more certain lock for number one as Scully. Described as a machine - in his early training sessions with us they had to hold him back as he was going too hard. Yes, there was a slight knock on his kicking but it was more than compensated by his apparent ability to get to so many contests and impact them. Many may want to suggest that his heart wasnt in at the Dees but he has hardly set the world on fire at GWS. He may still come good but the bottom line is that 4 years on - his junior form has absolutely not translated at AFL level. The most outstanding part of Scully's non performance is apparently the biggest tick for him was his attitude and will to succeed. This was absent with us and just as absent with GWS

There are many examples of highly touted juniors who just have not gone on at AFL level and conversely there are many that had average wraps on them that have excelled in the big time. What really miffs me is many posters who don't want to understand that there is sometimes no correlation between between TAC form and AFL form. Is Martin a better footballer than Scully at this stage and possibly for his career - absolutely no doubt. Anyone suggesting that this outcome was known at the time of drafting and we should have drafted Martin is kidding themselves. Even the whole Toumpas vs Wines debate has me scratching my head. For the whole of the final year it was reported by all TAC watchers that Toumpas was between picks 2-4 and Wines was around the 5 plus mark. Toumpas was higher rated at the time. There is no evidence to the contrary. Is Wines a better footballer here and now than Toumpas - definitely. Will Wines be better over his career - who knows but guessing - probably. But at the time of drafting Toumpas was rated higher. So in hindsight we should have taken Wines but at the time the selection was correct ( as opposed to Cook and Strauss who were taken way too early).

To those who say - I always rated Wines higher than Toumpas I say congratulations - get a job as a recruiter because you know better than all the other current recruiters.

We know he was touted but we don't know he was rated by everyone, certainly everyone making noise rated him. I would be interested to know where Rendell and Wells (2 of the more astute recruiters) rated him. These guys generally don't & won't say, cards close to chest but there is no doubt the conventional wisdom was Scully was the man also the same with Toumpas as a top 3. Not sure why GWS didn't take him though.