I imagine that everyone has some type of system or things that they look when they form their impressions of whether a player is good, worth keeping on the list or should be cut etc It's always a very challenging thing as this is not an exact science and beauty is in the eye of the beholder so to speak. Certainly looking over our list currently, there are a number of players e.g. Jones, Maister, Stanley, Siposs, Ray, Hickey... and in recent seasons guys like McEvoy or Clarke that tended to divide opinions.
So my question is, what's your system, or what do you look for?
Please keep this thread free'ish of your actual player ratings (feel free to use examples by all means)... I will start a thread on that soon enough
My system.
It works in two parts.
I have a letter gradingf system
A+ = Absolute elite players of the comp whose brilliance is beyond dispute: Ablett, Pendlebury, Riewoldt etc
A = Amongst the better the better players of the comp but lack the consistency of the truly elite: Dal Santo, Murphy, Swallow
B = Players that are firmly cemented in the teams best 22. Usually play well and often look like becoming A-Grade players and often have patches where they are not as good or get beaten. Maybe guys like Hurley, Firrito, I think Jason Blake over the 2nd half of his career would be a good example
C = players whose performance is good enough to keep them in the team for now but they are a couple of good or bad games away from cementing their positions or getting dropped. A lot of the youngsters come to mind here, guys like Gartlett or Cam Pedersan
D = Players that are barely good enough for now but are generally in and out of the team w/o ever cementing their spots and are likely to be cut if they don't improve. Siposs or Dunnel perhaps
E= Guys that simply don't look up to it (you get the idea)
So you give the player a rating of what you think they should be and you compare that to where you think they actually are.
The players that are equal or higher are the ones that you want to keep whilst it's the under performers that you look to trade away or cut.
Using this system explains why I for one was not unhappy when we traded McEvoy away.
I felt that McEvoy should have been an A-Grade player. Consistently good and having occasional great games and even on down days was pretty solid. I personally felt though that his performances were closer to that of a C-Grade player. Generally tended to do just enough to have a serviceable game with occasional good games and regular bad ones. Given that I believe he would have been payed handsomly with us for potential and viewed scope of development, I thought he was pbly getting more then he is worth and hence trading him was pretty the right move.
The obvious flaw with this system is that there is no obvious spot place on it to place ratings into context.
For example Luke Dunstan is a player that I believe will be either an A+ or A-Grade player but is currently playing closer to a C+ or B-Grade sample. That comes across as somewhat unnecessarily harsh on a kid playing his 6th game. Alternatively... Lenny Hayes is an A+ elite player but on performance now is again closer to B-Grade as he is in the twilight of his career.
Thoughts?
