WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB - CHARLIE SPARGO

[Little Goffy 14,526]

Can anyone help me clear this up once and for all -

Is Charlie Spargo in any way related to former board member, vice-president, acting president, acting CEO and Foundation Heroes organiser Peter Spargo?

 

[Dante 2,739]

1 hour ago, old dee said:

Here's hoping Mr. Shadow.

Careful Old, that post was almost positive.

 

[RedsoxMan 144]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Sounds like a more talented Viney from that description.

The club has given him a low number of 9, so they must think he can play

[Demons11 7,009]

He will be a fan favourite very quickly.  Tough as nails. 

[M_9 2,082]

1 hour ago, Little Goffy said:

Can anyone help me clear this up once and for all -

Is Charlie Spargo in any way related to former board member, vice-president, acting president, acting CEO and Foundation Heroes organiser Peter Spargo?

 

Charlie Spargo's dad is Paul. Peter Spargo is probably the person you're thinking of.

[DeeZone 9,826]

My thoughts in spades faultydet.

Go get em Spargs.

Go Dee's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Matt Demon 1,418]

4 hours ago, RedsoxMan said:

The club has given him a low number of 9, so they must think he can play

They gave Toumpas 5

[ding 5,126]

Hard as a cats head and hates losing........... AND he has skills.

Exactly what we have needed more of for years.

Might just be our biggest surprise packet in "18

[old dee 23,788]

55 minutes ago, Matt Demon said:

They gave Toumpas 5

Very sharp MD.

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,503]

1 hour ago, Matt Demon said:

They gave Toumpas 5

He got that number from Gysberts!

[Sydee 4,414]

12 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

He got that number from Gysberts!

CP5 shaking in his boots - yikes !

[Ethan Tremblay 30,856]

Little Charles Spargo is already my favourite small player.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Ethan Tremblay

[Vogon Poetry 2,095]

The discussion on Spargo is both interesting and encouraging, from his descriptions we at least will find out what his potential is because he will give himself every chance.

What I also find interesting is the continual references from different things I've read about him being a much higher pick other than for his injury.  If those reports are right we've picked up someone who was potentially top 10 at pick 29 because he hurt his shoulder, an injury that is unlikely to have long-term implications.

My question is this.  Why do recruiters mark down players that have injuries in their draft year to such an extent?  Two recent players that have been marked down are Lever and Burton, players who are now playing well above their draft pick and close to where why were expected to go if they had not been injured.  I'm sure more enthusiastic junior footy followers will know of other examples but others that come to mind are Joel Selwood, Jake Stringer and even perhaps Chris Judd.

If Spargo was genuinely top 10 (or top 5 as Dazzle I think mentioned) how does he get to 29?  It's even more confusing when you consider Geelong and WCE (from memory) had multiple picks shortly before we picked him up.

I understand his issue with size but that aside the practice of marking down players who are injured in their draft year to such an extent is strange and I think it presents excellent opportunities particularly if you have a strong list.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

Interesting question VP. I think it’s just risk/return territory i.e. with a top pick, recruiters probably feel safer in selecting a kid who has proven form over the past year.

As everyone knows though, we closely followed Lever in his draft year and he was apparently in the mix for picks 2&3 but the club simply couldn’t go past Petracca and Brayshaw. Hence the Trengove to Richmond for pick 12 trade, which was to be used on him.

Jaidyn Stephenson, who Collingwood picked up last year, probably fits the category of an elite junior with injury concerns who was still selected with a high draft pick. If Collingwood didn’t pick him, he may very well have slid to pick 20 or so.

Spargo will be a player - you kind of just know he will. He’s the sort of player the Swans would typically land with a second round pick. Pleasantly surprised that we landed him though.

 

[Satyriconhome 10,871]

3 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

The discussion on Spargo is both interesting and encouraging, from his descriptions we at least will find out what his potential is because he will give himself every chance.

What I also find interesting is the continual references from different things I've read about him being a much higher pick other than for his injury.  If those reports are right we've picked up someone who was potentially top 10 at pick 29 because he hurt his shoulder, an injury that is unlikely to have long-term implications.

My question is this.  Why do recruiters mark down players that have injuries in their draft year to such an extent?  Two recent players that have been marked down are Lever and Burton, players who are now playing well above their draft pick and close to where why were expected to go if they had not been injured.  I'm sure more enthusiastic junior footy followers will know of other examples but others that come to mind are Joel Selwood, Jake Stringer and even perhaps Chris Judd.

If Spargo was genuinely top 10 (or top 5 as Dazzle I think mentioned) how does he get to 29?  It's even more confusing when you consider Geelong and WCE (from memory) had multiple picks shortly before we picked him up.

I understand his issue with size but that aside the practice of marking down players who are injured in their draft year to such an extent is strange and I think it presents excellent opportunities particularly if you have a strong list.

I've discussed this with Jason Taylor and Kelly O, it is the continuity, with teenage kids if they have been following a particular player for a few years and they get an injury as long as the player gets back late in the piece and looks the same player they will take a punt

Hamish Brayshaw is a good example, the injury he had seemed to impact him so clubs overlooked first year, still getting back to the player he was, so West Coast took a punt with late pick

The draft is a lottery anyway, we have had a few bad tickets over the years

With Spargo think not only injury but size went against him with some clubs

[Dee Dee 1,108]

Nor sure if it’s been mentioned but young Charlie’s great grandfather Bob senior played 2 games for Melbourne in the early ‘40’s. So there is a connection to the club!

I’ve said before - as a 4th generation AFL/VFL player Charlie has football running through his blood like few others. 

[DeeSpencer 25,685]

5 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

The discussion on Spargo is both interesting and encouraging, from his descriptions we at least will find out what his potential is because he will give himself every chance.

What I also find interesting is the continual references from different things I've read about him being a much higher pick other than for his injury.  If those reports are right we've picked up someone who was potentially top 10 at pick 29 because he hurt his shoulder, an injury that is unlikely to have long-term implications.

My question is this.  Why do recruiters mark down players that have injuries in their draft year to such an extent?  Two recent players that have been marked down are Lever and Burton, players who are now playing well above their draft pick and close to where why were expected to go if they had not been injured.  I'm sure more enthusiastic junior footy followers will know of other examples but others that come to mind are Joel Selwood, Jake Stringer and even perhaps Chris Judd.

If Spargo was genuinely top 10 (or top 5 as Dazzle I think mentioned) how does he get to 29?  It's even more confusing when you consider Geelong and WCE (from memory) had multiple picks shortly before we picked him up.

I understand his issue with size but that aside the practice of marking down players who are injured in their draft year to such an extent is strange and I think it presents excellent opportunities particularly if you have a strong list.

I don't think they really do mark them down all that much. Plenty have been drafted very high after injuries, including Aiden Bonar this year who went at pick 11 after 2 ACL's. Stringer was pick 5 after a really nasty broken leg - the Nathan Brown injury.

Lever was a tall defender who missed his final year and therefore miss those big state games against the other best kids with a target on his back. Lots of young talls play well as underages but don't kick on when there's more pressure - see Sam Hayes this year. It's rare to take a key defender in the top 10 anyway, so pick 14 isn't a huge slide.

Burton had a really nasty injury. It's the kind of injury you don't take a chance on in the top 10. He looks a beautiful player but might not be a midfielder or KPP either so the reward isn't as good for the risk.

Selwood clearly was worth the risk but his knee was called degenerative at the time. If trusted doctors use degenerative with 18 year old it's a bad combination. 

I doubt Spargo ever would've gone top 10. The midfielders who went top 10 were big, strong, athletic and productive juniors. Bailey at 15, Higgins at 17, L Fogarty at 22 look similar kinds of players with similar production. I don't think Spargo really slid due to injury, I think he was drafted at the right spot, but could've gone higher had he player more games and put up the big numbers.

Of the teams in and around the range to draft Spargo: Richmond took Jack Higgins, a similar player. Geelong took Fogarty who's a similar forward/inside mid smaller player and then took Kelly as an outside runner. West Coast drafted some highly rated talls then took the risk on Liam Ryan who could be anything. GWS overlooked their former academy prospect for a different small in Daniels but he probably suits their needs better as more of a goal kicker. And North overlooked the (non-eligible) father son to go with a speedy and athletic risk-reward pick after getting a plug and play midfielder in the top 5.

 

[Skuit 10,031]

8 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

My question is this.  Why do recruiters mark down players that have injuries in their draft year to such an extent?  Two recent players that have been marked down are Lever and Burton, players who are now playing well above their draft pick and close to where why were expected to go if they had not been injured.  I'm sure more enthusiastic junior footy followers will know of other examples but others that come to mind are Joel Selwood, Jake Stringer and even perhaps Chris Judd.

You could probably look to the stock market for some of your answers VP. It's not just the perception of a player's value but the perception of other perceptions of both the player and other perceptions - compounded by the uneven market-entry levels of investment capital and the both bi-directionally strategic and psychological bearing that will have on a portfolio approach, to mention nothing of course of the actual approach devising and executing individuals and their own broad set of personal and occupational circumstances, or, the added variable here that, in the instance of a draft as it pertains to football, not all sub-level objectives are identical across the participating and yet still effectively competing parties. 

In short: it's all bull-[censored].

[Deemania since 56 6,634]

On 11/25/2017 at 5:55 AM, CityDee said:

Lively tough decent by hand and foot . 

Spargo and Viney will be pressure beasts working in tandem around the footy . 

Hell, that is a great consideration. Fits nicely with a total running game to have two feeders in tandem.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,780]

But it’s all clear with the block chain.

[Axis of Bob 11,802]

On 20/01/2018 at 10:07 AM, Vogon Poetry said:

My question is this.  Why do recruiters mark down players that have injuries in their draft year to such an extent? 

I think there are two reasons:

1- They are being ranked in relation to their peers, but their peers will develop more in their final year (or the latter half of it). As a result, any development of the injured player is invisible to recruiters, while the uninjured players continue to improve. So the recruiters need to extrapolate any potential development to be able to rank them equally with their peers. This represents a risk, especially for a player like Spargo who may have developed earlier than others.

2- It may actually be a really nasty injury that could affect the player. Burton was, Stringer was, Lever could have been (see Menzel). I agree that shoulders are unlikely to, but there are others. Will they be the same player again? Probably, but it is a genuine risk when you have invested a top 20 pick and a lot of money.

 

I think the first is more relevant to Spargo. When you are 17, a year of development is a lot. So he may have been an earlier ranked player with his peers before he was injured, but the rest are now better players than Spargo was before he was injured. The risk is in the unknown.

[640MD 3,375]

What a great thread,  very complex questions answered so well and detailed. As I can follow.  But I only played reserve grade amatures. Running around chasing the ball really.  The crystal balls the recruiters have are large indeed. We are as blessed now as we were stuffed before with our earlier recruits. Change of personnel is a  credit to our FD I assume. I also hope Mr Spargo goes as well as his highlights package indicates I for one was most impressed.   Go Dees 

[Mach5 4,767]

On 21 January 2018 at 5:56 PM, Axis of Bob said:

I think there are two reasons:

1- They are being ranked in relation to their peers, but their peers will develop more in their final year (or the latter half of it). As a result, any development of the injured player is invisible to recruiters, while the uninjured players continue to improve. So the recruiters need to extrapolate any potential development to be able to rank them equally with their peers. This represents a risk, especially for a player like Spargo who may have developed earlier than others.

2- It may actually be a really nasty injury that could affect the player. Burton was, Stringer was, Lever could have been (see Menzel). I agree that shoulders are unlikely to, but there are others. Will they be the same player again? Probably, but it is a genuine risk when you have invested a top 20 pick and a lot of money.

 

I think the first is more relevant to Spargo. When you are 17, a year of development is a lot. So he may have been an earlier ranked player with his peers before he was injured, but the rest are now better players than Spargo was before he was injured. The risk is in the unknown.

There's also the (non-injury related) considerations that 'draft experts' may have got it wrong about how high they rated a player like Spargo, or that List Managers may question how his play translates to the next level, or where he fits on the field. If he's projected to be a small forward or HHF, I think you need to be truly exceptional at what you do to be an early pick, not just 'really good.'

[Dr. Gonzo 24,210]

On 20/01/2018 at 10:07 AM, Vogon Poetry said:

The discussion on Spargo is both interesting and encouraging, from his descriptions we at least will find out what his potential is because he will give himself every chance.

What I also find interesting is the continual references from different things I've read about him being a much higher pick other than for his injury.  If those reports are right we've picked up someone who was potentially top 10 at pick 29 because he hurt his shoulder, an injury that is unlikely to have long-term implications.

My question is this.  Why do recruiters mark down players that have injuries in their draft year to such an extent?  Two recent players that have been marked down are Lever and Burton, players who are now playing well above their draft pick and close to where why were expected to go if they had not been injured.  I'm sure more enthusiastic junior footy followers will know of other examples but others that come to mind are Joel Selwood, Jake Stringer and even perhaps Chris Judd.

If Spargo was genuinely top 10 (or top 5 as Dazzle I think mentioned) how does he get to 29?  It's even more confusing when you consider Geelong and WCE (from memory) had multiple picks shortly before we picked him up.

I understand his issue with size but that aside the practice of marking down players who are injured in their draft year to such an extent is strange and I think it presents excellent opportunities particularly if you have a strong list.

Recency bias? They haven't seen the injured players for 6-12 months and not since they were 17 or 16 years old whereas the rest of the draft class are scrutinised for the year and "marked up" rather than the injured players being marked down.

[Big Carl 333]

He has been named in the squad for Sunday.

If he plays he will be the first 4th generation of a family with the same surname to play VFL/AFL football. 

His great grandfather played for the Demons.