Was listening to Larry, Curly and Moe (however not at all funny) this morning on SEN and Greg Miller was on. They had a brief discussion on Richmond's first draft pick David Gourdis. Miller said that he has great potential but that he needs work on his skill level (when a recruiter makes a statement like that it means that his skill are rubbish when compared to AFL standard. Its clear that to have any chance in the National Draft you have to have good skills to even be considered being picked, regardless of how tall or athletic you are. The reason that blokes like Bellchambers, Gourdis, McGinnity and Arrowsmith (who were all touted as top 20) were overlooked in the National Draft is that there skill level at this point in time is so poor that there is no chance that they could deliver an AFL standard skills in the first two years of their career.

All players picked before them in the National draft were picked becasue their current skill level is greater than that of the players that weren's picked.

It makes a mockery of the draft camp, which is all about physical attributes.

It makes a mockery of the draft camp, which is all about physical attributes.

Agreed, to they actually play a full game of football at the draft game as well as physical testing?

It makes a mockery of the draft camp, which is all about physical attributes.

It doesn't make a mockery of the draft camp. It doesn't matter how good your skills are, if you don't have any athletic traits then you won't get drafted. It's still vital that you have the correct physical attributes to play, and that recruiters have a way of screening players for those attributes. That's what the draft camp is all about, it's not for seeing who will make the best players.

So skills aren't everything (otherwise senior position 40 on our list would read A.Sampi not S.Martin), but they are a vital ingredient. It's why players like Ward and Godfrey are no longer on our list despite relatively good seasons.

Agreed, to they actually play a full game of football at the draft game as well as physical testing?

Recruiters don't need to see them play a game of football at draft camp. They have seen them play countless games at junior level against their peers. They know their footballing skills.

The tests at draft camp are there to measure players' physical attributes such as agility, endurance, speed and heart-lung capacity. They also measure psychological traits to help them determine whether a player can stand the rigours, training and maybe moving away from home involved in AFL football, which are not always apparent at junior level.

Players who are a bit "raw" because of lack of skills coaching at junior level can still make it if they have the other desirable attributes (although they usually slip through to the rookie draft and get picked more on potential rather than pure skill). Players who don't have the physical capacity or the determination to be footballers rarely make it, regardless of how skilled they are. That's what draft camp is supposedly for ... to weed them out.

Recruiters don't need to see them play a game of football at draft camp. They have seen them play countless games at junior level against their peers. They know their footballing skills.

The tests at draft camp are there to measure players' physical attributes such as agility, endurance, speed and heart-lung capacity. They also measure psychological traits to help them determine whether a player can stand the rigours, training and maybe moving away from home involved in AFL football, which are not always apparent at junior level.

Players who are a bit "raw" because of lack of skills coaching at junior level can still make it if they have the other desirable attributes (although they usually slip through to the rookie draft and get picked more on potential rather than pure skill). Players who don't have the physical capacity or the determination to be footballers rarely make it, regardless of how skilled they are. That's what draft camp is supposedly for ... to weed them out.

Agree ML to an extent. I no doubt believe that recruiters these days do not pick 'raw' individuals in the national draft as the expectation is that they could play in their first season.

I guess Daniel Bell is a good example. His skills were mediorce when his career began for a number 14 pick and it has taken a good three to four years of work to get his skill up to where they are now.

It doesn't make a mockery of the draft camp. It doesn't matter how good your skills are, if you don't have any athletic traits then you won't get drafted. It's still vital that you have the correct physical attributes to play, and that recruiters have a way of screening players for those attributes. That's what the draft camp is all about, it's not for seeing who will make the best players.

So skills aren't everything (otherwise senior position 40 on our list would read A.Sampi not S.Martin), but they are a vital ingredient. It's why players like Ward and Godfrey are no longer on our list despite relatively good seasons.

I'm a cynic of the draft camp, especially when it comes to midfielders. Recruiting managers should be able to assess whether a player has the physical attributes to make it at AFL level during match conditions. Players like Mitchell, Swallow, Priddis, Davey and Pearce were either overlooked or fell in the draft based on their physical attributes, rather than their ability to find the ball. Whether a player has a big engine and excels at the beap test, is irrelevant to me, if he doesn't know were to run.

Does the name Mark Bertz ring any bells?

It doesn't make a mockery of the draft camp. It doesn't matter how good your skills are, if you don't have any athletic traits then you won't get drafted. It's still vital that you have the correct physical attributes to play, and that recruiters have a way of screening players for those attributes. That's what the draft camp is all about, it's not for seeing who will make the best players.

So skills aren't everything (otherwise senior position 40 on our list would read A.Sampi not S.Martin), but they are a vital ingredient. It's why players like Ward and Godfrey are no longer on our list despite relatively good seasons.

I have heard and read that J. Grimes' ahtletic (speed and acceleration are suspect) but his workrate, endurance, vision and of course well-documented Leadership are stellar.

I think that, while I agree that skills are very important in assessing a kid, that there are a lot of problems with what you have said.

Firstly, Daniel Bell has never had a problem with his skills. His skills have always been very good. He needed to learn how to play football after growing up on a farm in SA and to improve his endurance.

Arrowsmith's problem is his speed, not skills. Bellchamber's was his endurance. McGinnity is just a bit vanilla.

The issue is more with the casual observer who looks more at results than forecasting that forward to AFL level. Looking at Bellchambers dominting the hitouts against Div 2 sides but still doing nothing around the ground. The questions then are, "will he be a dominant tap ruckman at AFL level?", "why isn't he doing anything around the ground?", "can we improve that?". Or with Arrowsmith it would be, "can we improve his pace to AFL standard?", "if not, what is his role?", "is he good enough for that role?".

Also, it's easier for casual observers to look at Draft Camp results as then are quantitative measures, which is hard to obtain in a subjective field. But would you draft Donovan Bailey? Why not: He's 6'3, 95 kg and runs 100m in 9.8 seconds? A recruiter will look at him and tell you that he can't play footy. An internet critic will cite you his draft camp performance.

Berts was an aerobic freak, but just couldn't play footy. He actually had decent skills but couldn't get near it.

Now i think in order to look at this objectively we need to draw a division between any abject lack of skills.. and raw skills capable of honing.

Some clubs have fallen for the wonder of athletic ability whilst relatively unskilled. Some clubs look for kids who have some footy nouse... good fitness and a stock of skills without them necesaarily being silky !!

Some things you just cant really teach.. We've all seen players lost at see. They just dont see th egame in the same light ( and pace ) as others.. but they have all the supposed required attributes, only in real time under game conditions it come to nought !!

Fitness can be improved if the underlying physique is there. A football brain is hard to cultivate.. you either get it or you dont. Skills can be improved if you have the requisite co-ordination, but there needs to be a foundation.

Ive been watching with not only geat anticpiation but curiosity as to who we would pick up.

Now teh glasses maybe a tad rosey at the presetn but I cant help feeling we've gone for footballers first and fitness freaks as a secondary consideration. Even the basketballers have shown aptitude and indeed proess. Time will tell if the football gene is satisfactory.

They say brain will beat brawn...so to will skill defeat blatant fitmess.

It doesn't make a mockery of the draft camp. It doesn't matter how good your skills are, if you don't have any athletic traits then you won't get drafted. It's still vital that you have the correct physical attributes to play, and that recruiters have a way of screening players for those attributes. That's what the draft camp is all about, it's not for seeing who will make the best players.

So skills aren't everything (otherwise senior position 40 on our list would read A.Sampi not S.Martin), but they are a vital ingredient. It's why players like Ward and Godfrey are no longer on our list despite relatively good seasons.

to add one more....mindset, skills , fitness and mindset and you have yourself a footballer

The draft camp should at least have some drills to test disposal skills, ball handling and that sort of thing.

US Marine's developed the snap shot training ground (cut-out of 'enemy' pops up from behind rock, shoot it, it drops, and so on) and massively improved firing accuracy and more interestingly confidence - people learnt to 'just do' rather than hesitating and overthinking it.

Can't over-emphasise how important this drill was - it was the most successful of the new training programs which transformed the Marine Corps from hacks to elite in the space of 18 months during the Second World War.

Something like that would be an intersting exercise with kicking, both as a measuring stick and as a training exercise.

It's application in football would be to eliminate the second guessing that goes on, and train people to pursue the good option they see, rather than fidgeting with it waiting for something better.

The draft camp should at least have some drills to test disposal skills, ball handling and that sort of thing.

US Marine's developed the snap shot training ground (cut-out of 'enemy' pops up from behind rock, shoot it, it drops, and so on) and massively improved firing accuracy and more interestingly confidence - people learnt to 'just do' rather than hesitating and overthinking it.

Can't over-emphasise how important this drill was - it was the most successful of the new training programs which transformed the Marine Corps from hacks to elite in the space of 18 months during the Second World War.

Something like that would be an intersting exercise with kicking, both as a measuring stick and as a training exercise.

It's application in football would be to eliminate the second guessing that goes on, and train people to pursue the good option they see, rather than fidgeting with it waiting for something better.

interesting point. most drills at training involve something like the kick out of full back to the flank, the flank centers it and the guy at CHF has a shot at goal, all the while each player runs to where they kicked it. a drill that forced players to think and hit targets as they show up...i wonder how that could be done.

Errr, you're missing the point. The recruiters watch these kids play footy and will be able to tell if they can kick/play. Speed and endurance is harder to pick up with the naked eye, so the Draft Camp is able to confirm their thoughts on these types of things.

Draft Camp is just testing for physical and psychological attributes, as well as getting them all together.