Axis of Bob

Interesting that people are making the comparison between Anthony and Miller. I watched the Casey v Collingwood game at Victoria Park this year. Miller smashed Anthony into an infinite number of infinitely small particles. I'd be lying if I said that this didn't worry me more than a little.

ox 5: E25: E25: How clear was he in saying that it was rubbish because of the lack of reasoning? The words say that he though it was a rubbish effort ..... and also that there was no reasoning. He said it was a rubbish effort even before saying that there was no reasoning. I would like to know how these drafts are differentiated?

Call me picky, but I was interested to know what the difference between your phantom draft and Jay Clark's 'rubbish effort'. So I did a comparison. E25 J Clark Difference (spots) 1 - Swallow Swallow 0 2- Day Bennell 1 3- Bennell Day 1 4- Polec Gaff 2 5- Gaff Heppell 1 6- Heppell Polec 1 7- Lynch Lynch 0 8- Darling Atley 12 9- Gorringe Gorringe 0 10- Caddy Smedts 1 11- Smedts Caddy 1 12- Atley Jacobs 4 13- McCarthy Pitt 5 14- Smith B Smith B 0 15- Prestia Smith I 9 16- Jacobs Lycett 4 17- Pitt Harper 4 (Harper selected by E25 at 26) 18- Watson McCarthy N/A 19- Lycett Lamb 3 20- Lamb Darling 1 21- Guthrie Conca N/A (Conca selected by E25 at 31) 22- Wallis Wallis 0 23- Cook Parker 2 (Parker selected by E25 at 27) 24- Smith I Prestia 9 25- Hallahan Cook N/A As you will note from the above 'table', your top 25 is pretty much the same as Jay Clark's top 25 (albeit with the order has been changed ever so slightly). Plus, the players that you didn't include from Clark's top 25 were selected by you at 26, 27 and 31. As a breakdown of the two drafts: 5 selections were the same (20%) 12 selections were within 1 place (48%) 18 selections were within 4 places (72%) The three players you named that Clark did not have in his top 25 were Watson, Guthrie and Hallahan. Each of these is a pretty standard name through the BigFooty phantom drafts, so it's no surprise to see them there. I'm not saying that any of the drafts are better than the other. However, what is it that you think specifically differentiates your draft from Jay Clark's "rubbish effort"? Especially since every single player in his top 25 are rather by you as being in the top 31 players in the draft.

It's very hard to do a phantom draft. Even when I watched a bit of junior footy, there is no way that you could ever see enough (unless you had access to all the videos) to be able to put them in a decent order. And then that's assuming that all clubs think the same way that you do. And you also don't have access to a player's mental ability or his background, or how he'd fit into a side personally. And separating different players (as old55 showed in his 'Best Available' thread) is nigh on impossible. It involves a whole lot of 'gut feel' rather than anything when you get to that level. Usually you can put players into categories with a bunch of other players and then it comes down to gut feel and how you think a player will fit into a team's style of play. I did a couple in my younger days and they were awful. There are a few guys at each club who spend an entire year trying to put together a 'phantom draft', and then an actual draft where the phantom goes out the window. These guys know a hell of a lot more about footy than you or I. So it's very easy to pot someone for doing a phantom draft. It's all guesswork because nobody knows. Even the best ones on BigFooty will have holes all through them. Look at the efforts of the past and you will see how accurate they are. Matt Burgan would do a good one each year, and it wasn't because he knew all about the players, but rather because he spoke to recruiters .... who DID know all about the players. It's funny, though, because every single year he'd name players than nobody knew of (like Harry Taylor), and have a different order to the groupthink phantoms across the internet, and the entire online football community would scream that he had no idea and that the BigFooty drafts were far more accurate. And I didn't usually hear too many apologies afterwards when he was right, either.

Peanuts, E25 has been aggressively attacking other posts without giving very much reasoning in return. He's just been loud, without actually saying anything. In the old adage 'put up or shut up', he's been doing very little of either. So when you asked him to give a phantom draft, then I thought I'd make it more difficult for him to wriggle out of. He's inoffensive enough, but eventually someone had to call him on his lack of content. I'm just trying to help him become a more considered poster that adds new thought to the forum.

In response to Jay Clark's phantom draft, E25 has promised us his own phantom draft. He has promised to include his reasoning too. So I thought that I'd create a thread so that we can all discuss his draft and explanations.

I was thinking that you were wrong, but I had a look through the last decade of first round draft picks: 2009 - Daniel Menzel 2008 - Mitch Brown 2007 - Harry Taylor 2006 - Joel Selwood 2005 - Travis Varcoe 2004 - Traded for Ottens 2003 - Kane Tenace 2002 - Andrew Mackie 2001 - James Bartel Funny, it seems that you are right. Mackie was their 'super smokie'. Tenace was a solid pick, but a bust. Bartel was a solid pick. Selwood was solid. Menzel was. It seems that, when they were at the top, they moved away from that. It backs up your theory where they kept picking up good players until they got to the top. Then they took Taylor to fill a gap and Brown for the future. The other way to look at it is that Geelong is probably now trying to get some talent on their list to rebuild after their golden era. At the top of their power, they just had to keep their good players together - so they didn't need player 31 and were able to draft for the post-2010 era. So what would each team be drafting for? Geelong is probably drafting for 2018. St Kilda may still be drafting for 2011-12, especially given that their overall talent is thin, although high at the top end. Carlton would probably draft for 2011-14 and go safe, to prived Judd support. Collingwood isn't drafting at all. Richmond probably do need to get that quality of their list somewhere, given that they have Riewoldt, Deledio and Cotchin, so they'll probably go safe. North is hard to pick up on because they've got a lot of good ordinary players, but nothing really at the top end. Do they take a risk by trying to get a star? Maybe that's the time where you really do need to take the risk. Interesting, then, that they took Cunnington last year. I don't think we're in a position where we need to throw Hail Marys now. We have top end talent - we just need to develop it and surround it with class.

I agree old. I'd be happy, given our situation and the circumstances of the player involved, if we kept Newton for next year. E25 & rpfc - it's not up to you (or me) whether the rules change during the off season. There's a General Discussion board on there for your use if you feel like it. Maybe if your discussions are interesting and funny enough over there then you will make more people want to go there. It seems that some posters want too use the off season to justify their own childishness.

Maybe they don't go to the General Discussion section because they're not interested once discussions move into 'non-football related territory'. Maybe.

I'm talking about the style of player. Even with a dodgy knee he was still a safe bet in footballing terms.

Yep, Rioli was picked up there. But they had some making up to do after taking Thorp and Dowler as their previous top picks. Sometimes the risks pay off for you, but sometimes you end up with Beau Muston. It's possible, but it's very risky. How would Hawthorn be if they'd realised they had picked up Buddy and Roughy who would be good, and then just played it safely like Geelong did by picking up guaranteed AFL midfielders with their first round picks? Selwood instead of Thorp. Higgins instead of Dowler. Shuey instead of Schoenmakers. I know it may be a bit of a stretch to do so, but it shows the different styles. Given that Hawthorn already had Hodge, Mitchell, Franklin and Roughead, maybe taking the conservative route would have been better for them. Maybe not. Re: the mean. Jurrah's a very difficult one. He's one where you just have to trust your instinct on him and take the chance (or otherwise). He could have two spikes in the bell - one at 85 and one at 50!

He's really good in traffic, wins the contested ball, has a good strong body and has clean hands in traffic. Unfortunately I just don't think he uses the ball well enough by foot.

old: I think whether you want a star or you want the certainty probably depends on where your club is at the time. For example, if St Kilda had the choice then they are probably going to want the certainty of getting a really good player. They're in their window now and would want a sure fire quality player. Geelong, too, never really went for the superstar 'Hail Mary' pick with their first rounders. They always went for the player that was likely to be a really good player and left other clubs to take the risks. It's no surprise that their team was so composed with the ball, as they kept taking good, solid, composed players. Their stars came father-son (Ablett, Scarlett) and then they just overcame teams with their huge spread of A graders. On the contrary, Melbourne at the start of our development were pretty thin for potential stars. It turns out that Frawley has a chance, in retrospect. But we needed the stars and so we needed to take more of a risk to get there. So Watts/Naitanui were more attractive, since Rich is guaranteed A grade but unlikely to be any more. Looking at the 'spread' system, I'd like to adjust it a bit. It's good to know what the risk is, but you'd also like to know what the mean is. Morton, according to HT's example, may be 50-90 but, on the bell curve, is he skewed further one way or the other? Is he more likely to be 85 or 55? His mean is probably 80, which isn't reflected in the spread.

old55: That true that the variability is an important aspect. Risk management, if you will. If Watts is 75-95, then Daniel Rich is a 80-85 and Naitanui is 60-95. I know you prefer the certainty in your drafting, so how would you order these 3 on draft day? Based on this Watts would be before Naita, but where does Rich - man's body and ready to play - fall? E25: Do some analysis and then join the thread. If you don't want to then leave the thread. Easy choice. The adults are trying to talk.

The purpose of the thread should be obvious. Everyone always goes on about choosing the 'Best Available' when it comes to draft day. But what is best available? Even after a few years in an AFL system there is still a great deal of disagreement on who is the best available just on our list! So we can see why there is such a wide variation between clubs in how they rate players. The clubs have different holes in their list and different game plans that require different types of players to be effective. Just look at how St Kilda rated Luke Ball, and how he has been rated far higher at Collingwood. So why do some rate Watts above Scully? Why do some rate Frawley above Watts? Why do some rate Petterd in the top 6, while others rate him in the bottom 6? I could make arguments that each of Scully, Watts and Trengove is better, on a 'Best Available' basis, than either of the others. Every club will always pick the best available for their club, because it's so hard to separate them purely on best available. I rated Scully as my first pick because I think he's a 100% certain gold plated star midfielder. I pick Watts second because he's a freak and has the ability to be the most important player on our list in a position that's almost impossible to get, but I think that Scully's certainty to be a star and the importance of midfielders swayed me. But I could be easily argued to have Watts first. So, if we had pick 1, who would you choose - based purely on "Best Available"?

For payment purposes, he would qualify as a veteran. Basically it means that instead of paying half of Green and Bruce's contracts outside the salary cap, we would pay one third of Green, Bruce and Johnstone's wages outside the cap, with 2/3rds included within it. Since TJ would be on significantly less than the others, we would actually lose out and end up paying more total wage inside the cap. However, we may only include two veterans on the veterans list (for list management purposes). This means that we could only include 2 of Green, Bruce and Johnstone on the veteran's list. So TJ would have to be on the primary list and take the spot on the list of a primary listed player. Not that it makes any difference, because it's a crazy idea to recruit him.

I don't think he rated Petterd higher than Frawley, but it was certainly a close run thing. Ricky was certainly a favourite.

It's not about where he was picked, it's about where he would theoretically be picked now. So he stays in. Anyway, it's a very interesting challenge and one that is exceptionally difficult. Scully Watts Jurrah Trengove Frawley Grimes Morton Garland Gysberts McKenzie Blease Tapscott Bennell Petterd Spencer Fitzpatrick Strauss Gawn Wonaeamirri Bail Maric Jetta McNamara There are some really, really tough ones in there to rate. What is important to note is that if this were to be a draft then the top 7 or 8 would be pretty much unprecendented in terms of talent. That leaves me with a lot of hope for the future. But it really is a difficult question and you can see exactly why recruiters have such a hard time rating players and why some rate them differently to others. If you had to choose who was pick one, and you missed out on Liam Jurrah, then how would you feel? Alternatively, if you took Jurrah then how would you feel about missing Scully? Or Watts. Or Trengove. Or the AA Frawley. Or Grimes etc. The hardest thing, though, was rating players like Blease, Gawn, Fitzpatrick and Spencer. These players have so much development left in them that you just don't know where they're going to end up. Will they plateau and never quite be up to the level, or will they continue their development - and then where do they stop? Does Blease become Aker, or does he become Alex Gilmour? Does Gawn become Sandilands, or Brendan Van Shaik? Does Spencer become Jolly, or Shane Neaves? Does Fitzpatrick become Tippett, or any one of a number of skinny ruck/forwards that you never hear of again?

But they're both the same price, so you would obviously take the BMW. If you really needed the ute the you could take the BMW now, then sell it. With that value you could buy your ute and still have enough left over to buy a Commodore. Ute + Commodore > Ute.

Happy with that. Gives us an extra spot on the list for a player that was contracted but wasn't part of our future.

There are countless uncoordinated junior ruckmen who don't look so uncoordinated at 25. Sandilands was only rookie listed when he was 20. Cox's lack of coordination as a kid are legendary. It's amazing how added physical strength as well as just time to adjust to their rapid growth can turn lanky young boys into AFL ruckmen.

That's blatantly wrong, Robbie. Jamar was always a very strong mark and was a good tap ruckman. He did the 'big man' things very well, but his problem was that he didn't work hard enough. Johnson is a hard worker and is able to get the ball out wide. He has very good 'small man' skills but the problem is that he can't do the 'big man' things like marking and ruck work. Jamar improved his work rate through maturity, but he already had the prerequisite skills to be a good AFL ruckman. Johnson needs to suddenly learn how to mark and ruck, which would improve as he gets bigger and stronger. Unfortunately Johnson is as big and strong as he's going to get, so any improvement he can make in his game is marginal (at best).

I would have preferred that we'd have picked him up. But the Footy Department will have put a lot of work into ascertaining his value to our side and decided that our second round was what he was worth. I would not have wanted to spend more on him that the FD thought he was worth to us. Given that we were pretty firm on what we were willing to offer for Hale, one would have to assume that there is a plan B or sorts. If there was no alternative and the FD found his inclusion to be so valuable then we would have just given them 32 and swapped 12 and 17. Given the final deal then this deal would have covered Hawthorn's very easily. I'd actually prefer North to warehouse their compo pick for a future year, even though it could be 10 spots better in the draft. Given where our talent lies, it will mean that their talent would not be as mature as ours when we're going for a premiership. I'd also be happy to start bringing in mature(ish) players through the draft to fill perceived premiership holes in advance.

Ha! Dig up, stupid!

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/103652/default.aspx When comparing the 2008/09 drafts to this year, Prendergast said the past two drafts had more potential elite AFL players at the top-end than 2010. “The depth of this draft is quite good .... but whether the top-end stuff is as good as we’ve seen over the last two years - time will only tell.