An interesting academic article analysing recent AFL drafts, with particular reference to Melbourne, and not in a good way ...

https://theconversation.com/how-good-draft-choices-can-make-or-break-afl-teams-88870

5 years after the event an academic can tell me that Richmond picked better players at the draft than Melbourne....wow!

If we hadn't have lost to Richmond we would have had Martin. 

We have recruited well in recent years. We have not developed playing styles and all-ground intensity, direction or communication. We allow our coaching staff to separate players into like-groups too often, without coaching for support, support and some more support whatever the position on the ground. Skills develop from on-ground linkages and common purposes. We have allowed clearances and fwd playmakers  to 'bomb' as there are no runners getting into positions to make a difference. Our recruits tend to fade when these overt characteristics of our long-term game plan and problem-solving emerge, dictating and advertising our approach across a game. Some recruits on game day are good enough, now, to overcome these issues. It is far from a 'whole team' approach. This is not always the case but our Mr Reliability in the backline is about to become a forward in the coming season. Although he telegraphed his intent with disposal, often he did not thanks to the young breed who have come into the side. Patience and effort may make us more potent to play the game that we have seen as the Demons' Game, with the young brigade running, running and advancing the pill to our best advantage. Just an opinion, nothing more.

10 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

We have recruited well in recent years.

Have we....??

I see a lot of potential but none of them have taken a match by the scruff of the neck as yet.

 

29 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Have we....??

I see a lot of potential but none of them have taken a match by the scruff of the neck as yet.

 

Clarry and Petracca in patches have. Others will 

They needed to do an analysis to work that out....FFS, anyone who only has a passing interest in football could tell you that we stuffed up our draft picks.

Success is reliant on a number of factors, the draft is one of them.

Ignores the fact Richmond did a Bradbury

2 hours ago, machine11 said:

If we hadn't have lost to Richmond we would have had Martin. 

We would have had just pick 2, so still would have taken Trengove.

1 hour ago, Mach5 said:

Ignores the fact Richmond did a Bradbury

This if Richmond win the flag next year I might take them seriously, a good run with injuries anyone can win it.

do Richmond win the flag if they have our injuries? No way I doubt they play finals 

we lost gawn, hogan, viney, Jones for big chunks 

Richmond Lose riewoldt, rance, Martin and cotchin for as long as we lost our boys absolutely no chance they get anywhere near the top 8 

26 minutes ago, brendan said:

This if Richmond win the flag next year I might take them seriously, a good run with injuries anyone can win it.

do Richmond win the flag if they have our injuries? No way I doubt they play finals 

we lost gawn, hogan, viney, Jones for big chunks 

Richmond Lose riewoldt, rance, Martin and cotchin for as long as we lost our boys absolutely no chance they get anywhere near the top 8 

Quite correct, Brendan. We did lose a player backbone at the time when we were playing consistently - and it went on for weeks until recoveries were possible. I even suspect that we played the injured a little too early for the good of the side, not the players involved. Had we used a full list not affected by injuries, we probably would have been a finals certainty ... given a perfect world. Depth was sorely tested and one must wonder why there were few prepared 'stand-bys' ready. I always thought that we should have played Spencer in the ruck as first ruck, and a few atom ants off the bench rotations for short periods. Still, that may also have been disastrous. The loss of Bugg was a big loss ... he was hitting his straps and showed great determination for the ball. Watts and TMac could have been largely released, including the great Pedersen, providing us with some targets that went missing. C'est la Vie!

 I get so tired of economists, I really do. Economic statisticians in particular.

There are a number of little fluffy statements that should be read as 'please note massive caveat on data and circular interpretation'. For example " While Melbourne did better with its lower picks, those players generally aren’t as important for team performance as players selected with higher picks. "

Terrible charts, badly labelled, inconsistent formats being presented as if they are a like for like comparison. Conclusions thrown in as inserted sentences well before the discussion of the actual evidence. This is embarrassing to read.

Anyway, to the substance.

Richmond's 2005 and 2007 drafts were among the worst of any club, ever. Their 2010 draft was made respectable only by picking up Houli in the pre-season instead of a trade, unless you're a real fan of Reece Conca. 2011 produced only one player, Brandon Ellis.

As discussed in a number of other threads, Richmond's premiership hinged on an amazing surge of recruitment in just the last few years, with close to half their premiership team arriving since 2012.

Anyway... back to griping about economic statisticians.

What the hell is going on with that first chart? Every year only has two data points, except for 2009... oh... oh my.

Oh boy oh boy. I have a hunch... let me just check a few things... yep.

capslock time

PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AT UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE HAS INCLUDED ONLY PLAYERS STILL IN THE RICHMOND TEAM FIVE YEARS LATER AS DATA POINTS WHEN ASSESSING DRAFT PERFORMANCE

Basically, all failures have been excluded from the sample, in a 'study' that claims to assess success or failure.

The Richmond team was headed by the Dees most times and minutes of each game when the two teams clashed. Richmond made noticeable changes during games to rise from the mire. Melbourne did not. 

It actually wasn’t the change in personnel that helped Richmond in 2017, it was the complete overhaul of their coaching philosophy.

13 hours ago, Mach5 said:

Ignores the fact Richmond did a Bradbury

 

14 hours ago, Mach5 said:

Ignores the fact Richmond did a Bradbury

Whilst no Richmond fan, they beat Geelong by 51 points, GWS by 36 points and Adelaide by 48 points - all on the back of a win 15 win/3rd place season... doesn’t really seem like blind luck.

10 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Whilst no Richmond fan, they beat Geelong by 51 points, GWS by 36 points and Adelaide by 48 points - all on the back of a win 15 win/3rd place season... doesn’t really seem like blind luck.

They certainly played well in the finals no doubt, but a lot does come down to luck they had an incredible run with injuries, that’s why I believe if a team has a similar run this year just about anyone can win it, hopefully we can get a decent run at it, a fit gawn, hogan, viney and jones plus no brain fades from certain players I believe we would have pushed top 4 in 2017 

Next to zero injuries all year, dream fixture, good coaching, peak form at finals time, best player in the comp by a mile.

I'd like to see that from us in 2018

6 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Whilst no Richmond fan, they beat Geelong by 51 points, GWS by 36 points and Adelaide by 48 points - all on the back of a win 15 win/3rd place season... doesn’t really seem like blind luck.

GWS choked, Adelaide were a cusp-of-the-top-4 team in any other year, and Geelong never scared anyone and were flattered by where they ended up.

Good on Richmond for timing their run so well, but that flag was anyone's and they were an average side with a good system.

 

Edited January 1, 20187 yr by Mach5

20 hours ago, Mach5 said:

Ignores the fact Richmond did a Bradbury

Absolutely agree. 

Two weeks before the finals we were all trying to manipulate the ladder predictor so as to play Richmond in the first week. Like the Bulldogs the year before they hit a good vein of form at the right time of year. I can quite easily see them fall outside the eight in 2018. 

Two things,

The style of Games to be played to win big Finals in 2017 was perfect for the Tiger's march as it turned out.

Some witch doctor, who i would put akin to the "Medicine Man" doctor

 

7 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Next to zero injuries all year, dream fixture, good coaching, peak form at finals time, best player in the comp by a mile.

I'd like to see that from us in 2018

That seems a logical and simple request on your behalf, Moonshadow, one that we all piece together each year at the start of the season. If we can see it, why can't the bloody coaches? Just think how Norm Smith might simply manage the team for games ... turning Oliver and Petracca into Ronald Dale 1 and Ronald Dale 2. Two raging bulls onfield with one purpose!

On 12/31/2017 at 6:05 PM, fndee said:

Clarry and Petracca in patches have. Others will 

Hogan ?

21 minutes ago, Bay Riffin said:

Hogan ?

I want to see Hogan kick 5 in a Quarter against a Top 4 side

He is still to hit Top Gear...

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I want to see Hogan kick 5 in a Quarter against a Top 4 side

He is still to hit Top Gear...

I don't think we have a player on our list that has hit top gear elite yet. Oliver is on the way, Hogan and Tracc have shown glimpses. Viney hasn't hit top gear. Hibbert maybe the closest.

Surprisingly, the player on our list that IMO is closest to top gear elite hasn't played a game in the red and blue: Jake Lever. And we have 10 years of him to look forward to