This is an interesting discussion. The industry spends ever more time and resources searching for certainty in the draft; crunching ever more test data, game day observations, physical tests and phychoanalysis of players in the hope that it can identify who can play and who can't. Yet as we see so far it is still largely a lottery! About all we can say is that the recruits rated as first round picks are on average more likely to be better players than those rated as second round but an elite player could pop up anywhere in the first 20 picks and maybe later. Then there are the other variables about big blokes taking longer to mature vs your stock standard mid who may be peaking at 18 and so on.

Has drafting science improved? I am not sure, James Hird went at 76 many years ago, that wouldnt happen again would it? But then Tom Rotcliff was a rookey and is now tearing up the park. It is interesting that the draft order is a major plank in equalisation and is pointed to time and again as a reason other equalisation measures are not required yet there is no certainty that player 1 is going to be x% better than player 2 and so on, only that the odds are the top 10 should produce more good players than the next 10 etc. The major equalisation tool is still a lottery.

About the only way I see to increase draft certainty would be to increase the draft age to 20 so all these 18 year old elites get to play 2 years with men in the VFL/SANFL/WAFL. It would boost the standard of those leagues to narrow the jump to AFL and we would maybe learn a lot more about each players potential.

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.

Agreed Rjay - I have no inside knowledge - just what I read in both papers and around the traps.

I get the frustration that players lower down the pecking order in the draft do better than the ones we pick , however it just frustrates the life out of me when I hear it questioned "why didn't we take Martin over Scully or Wines over Toumpas" - the reason is simply that both players we took according to published reportsand conventional wisdome were more highly rated. Apart from ranting over our failure to develop players, I have no problems with our then recruiters being whacked for picking the likes of Cook who was purported to be a high teens pick at best. ( we went against conventional wisdom on Cook and look where that landed us)

About the only way I see to increase draft certainty would be to increase the draft age to 20 so all these 18 year old elites get to play 2 years with men in the VFL/SANFL/WAFL. It would boost the standard of those leagues to narrow the jump to AFL and we would maybe learn a lot more about each players potential.

This proposal has much merit IMHO. Players Association wont see it that way though.

This is an interesting discussion. The industry spends ever more time and resources searching for certainty in the draft; crunching ever more test data, game day observations, physical tests and phychoanalysis of players in the hope that it can identify who can play and who can't. Yet as we see so far it is still largely a lottery! About all we can say is that the recruits rated as first round picks are on average more likely to be better players than those rated as second round but an elite player could pop up anywhere in the first 20 picks and maybe later. Then there are the other variables about big blokes taking longer to mature vs your stock standard mid who may be peaking at 18 and so on.

Has drafting science improved? I am not sure, James Hird went at 76 many years ago, that wouldnt happen again would it? But then Tom Rotcliff was a rookey and is now tearing up the park. It is interesting that the draft order is a major plank in equalisation and is pointed to time and again as a reason other equalisation measures are not required yet there is no certainty that player 1 is going to be x% better than player 2 and so on, only that the odds are the top 10 should produce more good players than the next 10 etc. The major equalisation tool is still a lottery.

About the only way I see to increase draft certainty would be to increase the draft age to 20 so all these 18 year old elites get to play 2 years with men in the VFL/SANFL/WAFL. It would boost the standard of those leagues to narrow the jump to AFL and we would maybe learn a lot more about each players potential.

I have never understood why we assess these guys at 17 and a half years old anyway.

I agree completleywith your suggestion re 20 years old and perhaps waiting may test their real desire to make footy their career and they would be more committed and have longer careers also a benefit

Agreed Rjay - I have no inside knowledge - just what I read in both papers and around the traps.

I get the frustration that players lower down the pecking order in the draft do better than the ones we pick , however it just frustrates the life out of me when I hear it questioned "why didn't we take Martin over Scully or Wines over Toumpas" - the reason is simply that both players we took according to published reportsand conventional wisdome were more highly rated. Apart from ranting over our failure to develop players, I have no problems with our then recruiters being whacked for picking the likes of Cook who was purported to be a high teens pick at best. ( we went against conventional wisdom on Cook and look where that landed us)

The Cook situation occurred when we made the fatal error of picking for needs rather than best available. We wanted Lynch and GC grabbed him a pick earlier so we picked someone with similar physical attributes rather than the best player. Some on here still want us to go the same way.

Agree on Scully and Toump, that was the conventional wisdom at the time. Only a Rendell, Wells or Bucky would have the runs on the board to make another call and they probably would have gone the same way. We will probably never know.

This proposal has much merit IMHO. Players Association wont see it that way though.

Agreed but there argument is shot down when they openly state players need to earn a decent living because their careers are only short

Whilst that may be correct, being drafted at 20 and playing at SANFL, VFL or WAFL level training part time would enable them to complete an apprenticeship or complete the large part of a University degree/diploma, which tehy could utilise when the injury occured or the career came to an end

Agreed but there argument is shot down when they openly state players need to earn a decent living because their careers are only short

Whilst that may be correct, being drafted at 20 and playing at SANFL, VFL or WAFL level training part time would enable them to complete an apprenticeship or complete the large part of a University degree/diploma, which tehy could utilise when the injury occured or the career came to an end

and I cant help but feel that having footballers more educated assists in preparing for post football life, still a problem for too many.

"It's no use being where the ball aint"

"It's no use being where the ball aint"

That explains why our forward line is always so empty

That explains why our forward line is always so empty

Pay that twister.

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.

I don't know the stats from 2011 and 2012, but I strongly suspect that we do now win a lot more of the ball, which must be seen as progress, as painful as Sunday v Bears was. I guess one can't butcher it as much if one doesn't have it :-(

So, is it a start getting it more and butchering it, or would some prefer us not to even get it? (Could perhaps be less frustrating)

I don't know the stats from 2011 and 2012, but I strongly suspect that we do now win a lot more of the ball, which must be seen as progress, as painful as Sunday v Bears was. I guess one can't butcher it as much if one doesn't have it :-(

So, is it a start getting it more and butchering it, or would some prefer us not to even get it? (Could perhaps be less frustrating)

Either way, that poor skill level will nearly always leads to losses. There's no way we'll ever win more games than we lose with our current disposal levels being where they are. You can't have too many players in your side with questionable disposal skills and as a rule of thumb, the best sides would prefer to not even have one player with questionable disposal skills.

It's been an issue for us for a long time and if had a look at any of our starting 22 in any given week this season, we'd have at least 4-6 players in our team with below average disposal skills.

You just can't turn the ball over and expect to win and that's been the case ever since the game became more about keeping hold of possession (over 10 years ago?) We need to continue to recruit players who can kick the ball well and who can also win their own ball. Of course, that's easier said than done, 'monoccular'

The players who are not regularly in the side who you'd expect to be future regulars can nearly all kick the ball to position reasonably well or quite well ... JKH, Salem, Toumpas, Trengove, Cross & Hogan are 6 players that come to mind but that's about it (Hogan's kicking style is a little awkward but probably effective)

We need a dozen more players who can dispose of the ball well as well as being able play the game at a good level. As most are aware by now, Hawthorn place a high emphasis on disposal skills as part of their recruitment and their model is one well worth following.

Either way, that poor skill level will nearly always leads to losses. There's no way we'll ever win more games than we lose with our current disposal levels. You can't have too many players in your side with questionable disposal skills and as a rule of thumb, the best sides would prefer to not have one player with questionable disposal skills.

It's been an issue for us for a long time and if had a look at any of our starting 22 in any given week this season, we'd have at least 4-6 players in our team with below average disposal skills.

You just can't turn the ball over and expect to win and that's been the case ever since the game became more about keeping hold of possession (over 10 years ago?) We need to continue to recruit players who can kick the ball well and who can also win their own ball. Of course, that's easier said than done, 'monoccular'

The players who are not regularly in the side who you'd expect to be future regulars, can nearly all kick the ball to position reasonably well or quite well ... JKH, Salem, Toumpas, Trengove, Cross & Hogan (Hogan is a little awkward but probably effective) are 6 players that come to mind but that's about it.

We need a dozen more players who dispose of the ball well. As most are aware by now, Hawthorn place a high emphasis on disposal skills as part of their recruitment.

I am not satisfied with the current status, of course, but merely saying that at least we are getting the ball more, which we couldn't / wouldn't in the past couple of seasons in particular.

There is certainly a long long way to go, and it remains to be seen whether Roos et al can get much more from this group, and just how many of the current mob are worth working on further and how many need to be cast off as lost causes. Clearly the status quo is nowhere near good enough.

I am not satisfied with the current status, of course, but merely saying that at least we are getting the ball more, which we couldn't / wouldn't in the past couple of seasons in particular.

There is certainly a long long way to go, and it remains to be seen whether Roos et al can get much more from this group, and just how many of the current mob are worth working on further and how many need to be cast off as lost causes. Clearly the status quo is nowhere near good enough.

Oh yeah, getting and having the ball a lot more is a vast improvement on at least the previous 2 seasons. I'm in full agreement with you there.

Our backline has used the ball quite well with Jetta, Howe, Dunn and perhaps Pedersen being the standouts (with regards to their actual disposal) Where we're falling down horribly is from just behind the centreline going forward.

Of course, we all probably know that so there's no news there but ... if we had far less players in the side who have questionable disposal skills, we'd be so much better off.

It's not just the execution of the kicks and handballs, it's the lack of vision, awareness and decision making that goes with it.

Oh yeah, getting and having the ball a lot more is a vast improvement on at least the previous 2 seasons. I'm in full agreement with you there.

Our backline has used the ball quite well with Jetta, Howe, Dunn and perhaps Pedersen being the standouts (with regards to their actual disposal) Where we're falling down horribly is from just behind the centreline going forward.

Of course, we all probably know that so there's no news there but ... if we had far less players in the side who have questionable disposal skills, we'd be so much better off.

It's not just the execution of the kicks and handballs, it's the lack of vision, awareness and decision making that goes with it.

Matthew Lloyd wrote an article in the Age on Saturday the looked at MFC's improvement under Roos. One stat that stood out was disposal efficiency this year was 5th best in the AFL! That surprised me but then I thought about it. Yes we are much improved in efficiency not so much because we have improved our kicking skills but more because of our changed game plan which is much about giaining possession, pass off with a kick, a mark and then hold the ball and reset before kicking forward. by then the opposition has flooded the backline and we have to work though congestion for a score.

The mark and hold it is killing our offensive game but it does help our defensive game. We have it more often, so contested possesion is up and we now control it more but in the end we can't score. So yes Paul Roos we are a side waiting to get beaten but some of that is your problem I would think.

Matthew Lloyd wrote an article in the Age on Saturday the looked at MFC's improvement under Roos. One stat that stood out was disposal efficiency this year was 5th best in the AFL! That surprised me but then I thought about it. Yes we are much improved in efficiency not so much because we have improved our kicking skills but more because of our changed game plan which is much about giaining possession, pass off with a kick, a mark and then hold the ball and reset before kicking forward. by then the opposition has flooded the backline and we have to work though congestion for a score.

The mark and hold it is killing our offensive game but it does help our defensive game. We have it more often, so contested possesion is up and we now control it more but in the end we can't score. So yes Paul Roos we are a side waiting to get beaten but some of that is your problem I would think.

I reckon Roos looked at our myriad of on field problems and decided that first things first, we needed to get the ball and start sharing it amongst ourselves.

So ... we've then often used the ball by going backwards and sideways with it which can often have the effect of frustrating the opposition into making errors. As a first step, that way of playing has had an overall effect of limiting the damage and our 4 wins have all come on the back of that style.

Offensively, we've been poor but on a few occasions, we've looked quite good. Where we're falling down offensively is with our awful disposal skills. Roos can't kick it for them and only a number of list changes is going to improve things.

We've got too many players on our list who can't dispose of the ball well under pressure. The springboard of attack can often come from the half back line and as we're only too well aware, we don't have great distributors on that line.

I reckon Roos looked at our myriad of on field problems and decided that first things first, we needed to get the ball and start sharing it amongst ourselves.

So ... we've then often used the ball by going backwards and sideways with it which can often have the effect of frustrating the opposition into making errors. As a first step, that way of playing has had an overall effect of limiting the damage and our 4 wins have all come on the back of that style.

Offensively, we've been poor but on a few occasions, we've looked quite good. Where we're falling down offensively is with our awful disposal skills. Roos can't kick it for them and only a number of list changes is going to improve things.

We've got too many players on our list who can't dispose of the ball well under pressure. The springboard of attack can often come from the half back line and as we're only too well aware, we don't have great distributors on that line.

But our disposal skill is in the top 5 teams apparently in the stats but yes I don't know if that was the accuracy for the dozens of teams looking for problems.

But our disposal skill is in the top 5 teams apparently in the stats but yes I don't know if that was the accuracy for the dozens of teams looking for problems.

I'd rather trust my own eyes EH.

Stats can be very misleading. Not disputing your figures but that vital disposal from just behind the centreline or from the half back line to the next recipient is where we often turn it over (or the ball quite often goes out of bounds from that errant disposal, thus creating a stoppage) If we acknowledge that a team's offense often starts from the HBF or thereabouts, we need to get a ton better.

And ... when we do happen to get that disposal right, the next disposal becomes another issue. In my opinion, those offensive turnovers explains why our inside 50 count is often quite low. We're ok once we do get it inside 50 but we don't have anywhere enough entries to kick winning scores.

Also, part of our game plan is to sometimes or often work towards creating a stoppage (as an option) Winning the stoppages as a consequence is vital part of the overall plan. Whilst that style of play remains, low scores can be the order of the day.

Roos just hasn't got the right players to work with (yet)

But our disposal skill is in the top 5 teams apparently in the stats but yes I don't know if that was the accuracy for the dozens of teams looking for problems.

This is where the OP and other posters have merit in regards to stats.

I would love to see the disposal efficiency broken down to forward half and back half.

What I am seeing is that we rarely cough the ball in defense these days and we are patient in chipping the ball around until we get the right option - this will make our disposal efficiency percentage look very high.

If you then pick three more stats - inside 50's , scores for and scoring efficiency and take on board what we are seeing it does paint quite a picture. We are coughing the ball up continually around the centre of ground and just forward of the centre. We don't get the ball into our forward line nearly enough but remarkably, when we do our conversion rate is quite good.

Stats in isolation mean little - you need to take them into account with what we are seeing on the ground.

We do not have the talent by foot that can slice up teams through the centre of the ground going forward. We have seen very little quick entries into the forward 50 that are really easy and end up with a leading forward being hit lace out. That's because we are lacking in highly skilled midfielders and importantly highly skilled half backs that can deliver the ball precisely and quickly.

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.

It is this sort of sentiment which convinces me that the human race is doomed. Effectively, the OP states "think less, think like me and she'll be right". If that isn't a recipe for an Andrew Bolt-like plunge into insufferable circular un-reasoning that leads only to death and fear, then I'll go 'he.

It is this sort of sentiment which convinces me that the human race is doomed. Effectively, the OP states "think less, think like me and she'll be right". If that isn't a recipe for an Andrew Bolt-like plunge into insufferable circular un-reasoning that leads only to death and fear, then I'll go 'he.

My apologies timD.

I was of the impression that opinions could be posted.

I will certainly refrain from posting any opinions from this time onwards.

The human race is once again safe.

My view is that our results have seemed poorer in the last 6 weeks precisely because the team started to try attacking more. Previously we played super-defensively preferring to kick backwards than take a risk going forward. Around about mid-year we seemed to reduce the amount of backward movement and tried to go forward more quickly. While this strategy increases the chances of winning it also increases the chances of any losses being larger because there is less overall emphasis on defence. Until we get the attacking part of the game right we'll continue to struggle.

That's just my observation watching the game. There are only two ways one can confirm whether my observation is correct or not - either the coach has to explicitly state that the switch in style was deliberate or stats showing particular game style characteristics need to be assessed. The type of stats I would have thought might back up my proposition might include kicks backward, playing on from a mark and forward 50 entries. Given Paul Roos won't be telling the other 17 coaches the answer, I'm certain the clubs use these detailed stats to try to work out for themselves if their "gut feel" about a change in play style can be proven.

La Dee-Vina...

I respect your thoughtful opinion greatly, but I'm surprised you observe that we've been attacking more in the last 6 weeks.

I've watched all those games, and I don't think we've attacked nearly enough, exactly the same as in the first thirteen rounds.

We still fail to play on. Players always look backwards before considering going forward. By the time they consider looking forward, all options are covered.

There is still too much time taken before kick-ins are taken. They rarely kick in ,or lead ,up the centre. Oppositions know they only have to zone wide to cover our kick ins.

We're still too scared to attack up the" centre corridor",even from the centre line.(remember the way Nathan Brown used to switch play to up the centre...the shortest way home!)

I really haven't noticed any change, though I've been hoping for it., and looking for it.

I thought that now we've concentrated so hard on learning defence, it would be beneficial to try to learn an attacking game. Even if it costs us premiership points, what does it matter at this point in time? Surely it would be helpful for next season.

It is this sort of sentiment which convinces me that the human race is doomed. Effectively, the OP states "think less, think like me and she'll be right". If that isn't a recipe for an Andrew Bolt-like plunge into insufferable circular un-reasoning that leads only to death and fear, then I'll go 'he.

I was trying really hard not to put it like that, but that's pretty much what I thought too.

Agreed. Albert Einstein said, "Make things as simple as possible .... but not simpler"

There is a lot of 'simpler' happening here.

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.

Yes there is. Massively, massively yes.

My apologies timD.

I was of the impression that opinions could be posted.

You can post your opinions. But your opinions are available for all to see, and comment on. If your opinions are stupid then people will call your opinions stupid. If you don't want your opinions criticised, start a blog and disable the comments.