In the National drafts from 2000 - 2009, there were "roughly" 14 A or B+ players chosen from the top 5 picks in all of those drafts. A total of 36 players can be graded below that level to varying degrees.  Many of those top 5 picks were complete busts or near busts (especially when considering expectations) 

At Melbourne, we've had 7 picks in the top 5 in the drafts from 2003 until 2012.  So far, not one of our picks has turned out to be an 'A' grader and it's not looking good that any of those 7 will ever be an A grader.  We traded our pick 2 last year and we also traded our pick 3 in 2012 in the Hogan deal.  In essence, Hogan could be counted as the 8th top 5 pick in that 10 year period.

Bad luck or bad recruiting? People may say that it's impossible to get so many picks so wrong but it's not impossible.  The odds aren't great that any given club will unearth an A or B+ player with a top 5 pick unless they have at least 3 chances at it.  Or, looked at in percentage terms, a top 5 pick only has a 25% chance of becoming at least a B+ player if we use the 10 year sample size as a guide.

For what it's worth, here are my 14 A or B+ players from those 10 drafts ... that means of course that 36 top 5 picks have not or did not get to at least B+ level (the bad news)

Roughead,  Hodge,  Franklin,  Judd,  Ball,  Cotchin,  Boak,  Murphy,  Pendlebury,  Deledio,  Griffen,  Cooney,  Goddard,  Nick Riewoldt

Anyway, see for yourself ...

2000 draft

2001 draft

2002 draft

2003 draft

2004 draft

2005 draft

2006 draft

2007 draft

2008 draft

2009 draft

Our 'luck' might have swung around in more recent times ... Tyson (a former top 3 pick),  Brayshaw,  Petracca & Oliver all look to have bright futures ... also, it could be argued that Hogan & Viney fall into the top 5 pick category.  And Watts is much improved as well.

So, the same argument still applies ... Bad luck or bad recruiting?

Edited June 3, 20178 yr by Macca
Fixed up one of the links

Bad recruiting. Promised spots to people and then bailed out at the last minute (Sloan, Rockliff etc.)

I think that every kid drafted has talent, but that is never enough. Melbourne's issue isn't who they draft, it's how they develop them. We have no strong leaders in the club, nobody who shows these kids the way, no superstars who they can model themselves on. We have Jonesy, who is a 100 % goer, but he isn't in the best 10 midfielders in the comp. Kids like Toumpas need to see elite players at training every day, learn from them daily, learn their elite habits, but the only time they get exposed to elite play is when the opposition stars kick their ars.

This is why, when kids like Tom Langdon get drafted by Collingwood, they thrive. It doesn't matter that they were drafted late. They learn from Pendlebury, Swan, and Ball what is expected of the elite. Until we put elite programmes in place, we will never be elite. This is why blokes like Colin Sylvia fail when they leave our club. The expectations of them at top clubs are beyond their wildest dreams, or anything they have ever been exposed to.

In the National drafts from 2000 - 2009, there were "roughly" 14 'A' graders chosen from the top 5 picks in all of those drafts. 36 players were below that level of 'A' grade to varying degrees. Many of those top 5 picks were complete busts or near busts (especially when considering expectations)

So, in that 10 year sample size, we can ascertain that any given club would need roughly 7 top 5 picks in order to have a chance of landing at least 2 'A' graders - in theory.

However, it's entirely possible to miss out on those "elusive" 2 'A' graders with only 7 top 5 picks. The laws of probability isn't an exact science and you might need 21 picks in the top 5 to get at least 6 'A' graders. In this instance, the sample size needs to be larger than just 7 to get the desired results (in my opinion)

Coincidentally, at Melbourne, we've had 7 picks in the top 5 in the drafts from 2003 until 2012. So far, not one of our picks has turned out to be an 'A' grader and it's not looking good that any of those 7 will ever be an A grader. We traded our pick 2 last year and we also traded our pick 3 in 2012 in the Hogan deal. In essence, Hogan could be counted as the 8th top 5 pick in that 10 year period.

Bad luck or bad recruiting? People may say that it's impossible to get so many picks so wrong but it's not impossible. The odds aren't great that any given club will unearth an 'A' grader with a top 5 pick unless they have at least 3 chances at it.

There's also the "At the time" argument and the hindsight argument to consider. I don't believe I've ever seen a large majority of supporters criticize a top 5 selection - at the time. That criticism only ever seems to happen in hindsight. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing

For what it's worth, here are my 14 'A' graders (I've been a little generous in some cases)

Roughhead

Hodge

Franklin

Judd

Ball

Cotchin

Boak

Murphy

Pendlebury

Deledio

Griffen

Cooney

Goddard

Riewoldt

2000 draft

2001 draft

2002 draft

2003 draft

2004 draft

2005 draft

2006 draft

2007 draft

2008 draft

2009 draft

n.b ... expectations diminish (somewhat) for an A grader past pick 5 - in my opinion. The top 5 "generally" pick themselves and nearly all the recruiters tend to agree on that.

The point of this thread ... there are certainly no guarantees with a top end draft pick.

Heaps of both I am afraid. When we were down the drafts were Shyte but that said we had shots at other drafts that we may have got right if we had the right blueprint for the type of player we needed. For what it is worth if you go for the best of the top 20 inside mids that have a dose of mongrel and demonstrated leadership skills for your first round picks you might just get lucky. But who knows.

it's us. you make your own fate.

It's the curse.

It's the curse.

no need for sexism ralphy

I think that every kid drafted has talent, but that is never enough. Melbourne's issue isn't who they draft, it's how they develop them. We have no strong leaders in the club, nobody who shows these kids the way, no superstars who they can model themselves on. We have Jonesy, who is a 100 % goer, but he isn't in the best 10 midfielders in the comp. Kids like Toumpas need to see elite players at training every day, learn from them daily, learn their elite habits, but the only time they get exposed to elite play is when the opposition stars kick their ars.

This is why, when kids like Tom Langdon get drafted by Collingwood, they thrive. It doesn't matter that they were drafted late. They learn from Pendlebury, Swan, and Ball what is expected of the elite. Until we put elite programmes in place, we will never be elite. This is why blokes like Colin Sylvia fail when they leave our club. The expectations of them at top clubs are beyond their wildest dreams, or anything they have ever been exposed to.

It's recruiting, not development.

If players like Gysberts, Morton and Maric were any good they would have thrived under the development at their new clubs but they didn't. Martin is probably the only current former Melbourne player who is playing better at his new club than at Melbourne.

bad development

The quinella

It's my impression that a single faulty state of mind greatly damaged both the recruiting and the development.

We treated our draft picks, and the players they obviously became, like they were assets on the books of a managed fund.

Not only that, but loaded with hubris we forgot that risk and reward are not inherently related when making 'investments'. So we even failed to properly administer within the terms of the managed fund approach. At several times, we were taking risks on draft picks for the sake of taking risks, on the perverse logic that risk itself implies reward.

Once we had these 'assets' on our books, the managed fund approach continued. Each player, and the playing group as a whole, was seen by the club as being like businesses in which the club had a balance-sheet stake. Expected to operate themselves, and generate a return.

It doesn't take much thinking to realise how drastically different this is to the way a club needs to operate, and in particular the way a club needs to constantly refresh, develop, stimulate, and mobilise the players. Very much in the sense of being an actual business operation, where all the shops and all the stock and all the production lines in the world wont help you if you can't actually connect your operations with their final goals and markets.

Basically, what we did with the draft picks was the football equivalent of first buying a bunch of restaurant space, including some in 'wacky amazing places that will be soooo trendy', and then not doing a proper fitout, or advertising, or cleaning the coffee machine.

I know it seems like an absurdly extended analogy, but it is a relevant one, because I really think it is very close to how 'certain people at the club' were operating.

I also really think that our club owes some players a serious apology.

Cale Morton, for example, for letting him wither on the vine, being left aimless and unguided on his physical goals and his role on match day. A complex player who didn't quite fit any category, he could have been a valuable utility creating advantageous mismatches. Instead he was always being left to cope matched up on the player the opposition coach thought most advantageous for them.

More generally, I think far more than 'tanking', the psychological scars on our playing are the product of that kind of scenario at a team level. Bad tactical adaptations on match day, vague and optimistic (to the point of silliness) gameplan, and constantly finding yourself on disadvantageous match-ups. Yep, that's like a textbook on how to crush confidence and initiative. "Lesson 1 - make sure they keep failing due to factors beyond their control."

Combination of bad recruiting and lack of development.

WORDS

More generally, I think far more than 'tanking', the psychological scars on our playing are the product of that kind of scenario at a team level. Bad tactical adaptations on match day, vague and optimistic (to the point of silliness) gameplan, and constantly finding yourself on disadvantageous match-ups. Yep, that's like a textbook on how to crush confidence and initiative. "Lesson 1 - make sure they keep failing due to factors beyond their control."

While I can't speak to the accuracy of your entire post, that last paragraph gave me pause for thought. If we're always matching up our players on opponents so that they can "learn something", we'll never be able to let those players transition into players OTHER coaches use as learning tools.

When was the last time we matched up all our players on whichever opponent we think will have the hardest time coping with US? Isn't that how you win a game? By making the enemy uncomfortable, not by making yourself uncomfortable?

Edited August 21, 201411 yr by Chook

There's also the "At the time" argument and the hindsight argument to consider. I don't believe I've ever seen a large majority of supporters criticize a top 5 selection - at the time. That criticism only ever seems to happen in hindsight. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing

I criticised Morton Trengove Cook Scully Watts Toumpas No hindsight necesary The club seems to get carried away with the hype about certain players ""At the time"

There's also the "At the time" argument and the hindsight argument to consider. I don't believe I've ever seen a large majority of supporters criticize a top 5 selection - at the time. That criticism only ever seems to happen in hindsight. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing

I criticised Morton Trengove Cook Scully Watts Toumpas No hindsight necesary The club seems to get carried away with the hype about certain players ""At the time"

The majority view from the supporters was different to your view

I also really think that our club owes some players a serious apology.

Cale Morton, for example, for letting him wither on the vine, being left aimless and unguided on his physical goals and his role on match day. A complex player who didn't quite fit any category, he could have been a valuable utility creating advantageous mismatches. Instead he was always being left to cope matched up on the player the opposition coach thought most advantageous for them.

You are delusional.

Cale Morton was gifted 75 or so games by this club. Oh but its our fault because we didn't make him lift weights and we played him on the wrong type of player.

Madness.

Every single kid has talent. There is no point having a projection system if you're just going to wing it. Melbourne chose a player that anyone else would have chosen had they not picked them.

Would Roughhead have been as good had he been at Melbourne? My guess is he'd have started his career with knee or back issues, work his way into the team, struggle to build up form, find a place in the VFL and eventually get delisted after 2-3 years.

Melbourne is where talent goes to die. I think it's less about poor recruiting, more about development, and even then I think bad luck has more of a role in it.

I also think it's just the general subconscious mentality people have of the club when they walk through the doors. You'd have to be pretty naive to think that being drafted to Melbourne doesn't have significant weight on how the player thinks, just as it would if a player is drafted to Hawthorn, Sydney or Geelong: at those clubs the draftees know where they are at and how hard it is to make the team. At Melbourne, there's always the fact that so many players come and go without doing anything, then you start to wonder why.

Just as with any business and working environment, the approach to professionalism and culture is integral. Melbourne sucks at both of those things.

You make your own luck

I hope that from 2015 on we make half a decade of Good luck

There's also the "At the time" argument and the hindsight argument to consider. I don't believe I've ever seen a large majority of supporters criticize a top 5 selection - at the time. That criticism only ever seems to happen in hindsight. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing

I criticised Morton Trengove Cook Scully Watts Toumpas No hindsight necesary The club seems to get carried away with the hype about certain players ""At the time"

Seriously....

Pray tell - where exactly do you think the hype comes from ? People just making it up ? The hype, is in reality is the expectation that comes from watchers of TAC/Junior footballer seeing these players and assessing or grading them. The idea that Scully at the time was far and away rated as the best junior in the land wasn't just pulled out of someones sphincter. These players were playing great football against their own age not open competition against men ( although some had played seniors at SANF/WAFL level - still a far cry from AFL)

The reality is that some great juniors do not go on to be great seniors. Throw into the mix that we have no idea how to develop players.

It is easy to sit back and be a genius after these players have played a season or two. But I won't sit here calmly and listen to revisionists bang on about us taking Scully/Trengove instead of Martin. Is it a mistake now ? Absolutely. At the time - absolutely not.

So "at the time" is 100% on the money. "At the time" these players were highly rated juniors.

So yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing

Edited August 21, 201411 yr by nutbean

You make your own luck

I hope that from 2015 on we make half a decade of Good luck

correct - and even the most ardent supporters of this club will reluctantly acknowledge that our club has been a stinkfest for many years. And yet we put juniors into this club and expect them to shine. We have made some mistakes in recruiting and then we had an organisation which in no way demanded excellence nor had the structures, staff or training regime to help juniors develop and prosper.

Most people are very despondent about our last few weeks performances as I am too. But I keep reminding myself of the big picture. I have the utmost faith that Roos and his coaching staff and PJ can set an organisation and culture where players will thrive and success will follow.

The reason I have the utmost faith is because we now have some of the best professionals in the business at our club. If they cannot turn this around then I am with WYL, the club has zero future. This is pretty much the last roll of the dice.

I think Mark Neeld pointed this out, we drafted the wrong type of players for the way the game is played today. We drafted on a Port Adelaide model from mid 2000's for run and stun type of football, the game is all about contested football, big bodies around the contested footy. We drafted skinny kids that could run and in Gysberts case a skinny kid that couldn't run. The foot skills of the players we drafted would have looked good at junior ranks they would have had time and space because they ran hard at AFL level you don't have this and all our early picks except Watts have or had disposal issues.

Funny every one is on Melbourne about Priority picks, Hawthorn received 3 priority picks at the start of the draft giving them 6 players from three drafts that were top 5 picks. Melbourne had 2 since 2000 Sylvia and Scully plus one end of first round.

2008 draft was the worst performance in Draft history, have a look at the players drafted after Strauss and Blease

correct - and even the most ardent supporters of this club will reluctantly acknowledge that our club has been a stinkfest for many years. And yet we put juniors into this club and expect them to shine. We have made some mistakes in recruiting and then we had an organisation which in no way demanded excellence nor had the structures, staff or training regime to help juniors develop and prosper.

Most people are very despondent about our last few weeks performances as I am too. But I keep reminding myself of the big picture. I have the utmost faith that Roos and his coaching staff and PJ can set an organisation and culture where players will thrive and success will follow.

The reason I have the utmost faith is because we now have some of the best professionals in the business at our club. If they cannot turn this around then I am with WYL, the club has zero future. This is pretty much the last roll of the dice.

I am now sure we are related nutbean that is exactly my view.

I think I read somewhere that TAC coaches have agreed not to 'tag' potential AFL draftees? Allow them to run and dominate, to make sure they're drafted?

Anyone else hear this?

We certainly didn't pick well.....Gawn throwing up on Scully's shoes....I rofled.

I think I read somewhere that TAC coaches have agreed not to 'tag' potential AFL draftees? Allow them to run and dominate, to make sure they're drafted?

Anyone else hear this?

We certainly didn't pick well.....Gawn throwing up on Scully's shoes....I rofled.

That may have been the most fortunate throw up in MFC history jr!

Bad Luck or Bad Recruiting

Bad Management period