Beware the "total rebuild"!

[White Winmar]

Now that we've officially missed the September action for the first time since 2007, thoughts turn to the state of the list and the extent to which it needs to be "rebuilt". The conventional wisdom of savagely pruning a list and rebuilding it through a concerted campaign of drafting in the best youngsters possible, once your so-called "premiership window" (a dubious and somewhat outdated concept) closes, is being challenged and in some quarters totally dismissed as a good option.

Recent history tells us that the clubs that have followed this route have fared relatively poorly in comparison to those who've taken a different approach. If early draft picks and taking the best youngsters was the most viable and sustainable way back to the top, how do we explain the recent failures of Richmond, Melbourne, Port Power and Essendon? Even our old favourites, Carlscum have failed to mount a serious challenge over the past 11 seasons and have regressed this year. If a succession of low finishes were the foundation of a return to the top, why have these clubs still have lists that have glaring weaknesses that have seen them unable to rise to the top 4? And before someone tells me the tigers are on the verge of something good, haven't we been hearing that for the past decade?

In that same time we have seen clubs such as Geelong, Sydney, Adelaide, the filth, Hawthorn and West Coast maintain their competitiveness and consistently challenged for, and played in, finals. Their performances have included the odd poor season, but they have all managed to bounce back quickly from these aberrations. The secret of their successes are two-fold. Firstly, and perhaps most obviously, these clubs are all financially powerful and well resourced. They have all thrown considerable resources into recruiting, and critically, player development. They have overcome the disadvantages of lower picks through developing their players more effectively. They have also traded shrewdly and not been afraid to seek alternative sources for recruits, especially in the state leagues.

With the available talent pool thinning considerably over the past 17 years, due to the introduction of four new sides in that time, the traditional profile of new recruits has changed considerably. Age is no longer the barrier it once was. A number of players in their late twenties are now beginning successful careers, something that was almost unheard of until the recent past. The total rebuild has now been replaced by a more pragmatic process, in which specific needs are targeted and the "profile" of the list in terms of age and player type is managed to ensure a genuine challenge for the flag is always possible. In an increasingly competitive market, the effects of even two to three poor years, have a devastating negative effect on membership, sponsorship, revenue and therefore viability.

It's gratifying to see the saints are at least attempting to catch up to the powerful clubs through the establishment of the player academy and through hiring someone like Chris Pelchen, who has a good track record for uncovering talent using less than conventional methods. His trade for Milera and Saad is an outstanding example of this. As the success of teams like Geelong shows, what matters most is how you identify and develop talent, rather than mere drafting order. So before anyone calls for the list to be slashed and dismantled, they should consider that what we've already got may be relatively good and that we shouldn't trade the farm away in the hope that we may come good several years down the track. SW also appears to have the ability to strike the right balance between short, medium and long term needs.

[plugger66]

We wouldnt be able to do a total rebuild at the moment even if we tried. We still have to many top end players to go to the bottom especially in the next 3 years. So it will really come down to our recruiting over that period. If it is good like the last 2 years we may be able to start progressing up the ladder after that period. If it is poor like 2008/9 then in 3 years that is when a total rebuild will begin whether we like it or not.

[White Winmar]

I think we're in furious agreement, plugger. I've spoken to a few people who reckon we should cut the list savagely. I'm with you in believing we couldn't effectively do that, even with the best of intentions. Tweaking the list, rather than slashing it, is the new way.

[terry smith rules]

great op

agree 100%

history shows a max of 8 outs is about right and anymore leads to issues

[skeptic]

it's all about getting the best player available with your first round pick

we buillt our core off respectable drafting (not perfect but not bad) in 2000-2004. We've fluffed a lot of the drafts since then but have dramatically improved the quality of our late picks over the last few seasons hencing leaving us with a current middle tier of quality kids with no immediate emerging superstars (fast out of the blocks type of players) hence our middle of the road position currently.

The bottom rebuild clubs you mentioned fluffed their best picks whilst the other did pretty well...

All of that being said, I agree that a large rebuild ain't right... you simply need to filter out the players that aren't going to be value for their pay packet

[dragit]

Most clubs challenging for the flag have at least one or two top 5 picks…
Try the Hawks without Franklin & Hodge
Pies without Pendlebury & Thomas
etc etc

[saintsRrising]

it's all about getting the best player available with your first round pick

.

It's all about getting a high % of your picks right.

Your first round pick is certainly more important...but if you keep getting many pics right then you are going to turn up some gold even with later picks...such as Fisher, Steven, Siposs.

Our last two years of drafting, just demonstrates ow we had been so poor for so long. The pickings were leen, but are now much better.

we buillt our core off respectable drafting (not perfect but not bad) in 2000-2004.

Respectable drafting ???

I think we underperformed relative to picks that we had (Look at the Judd fiasco for one), and the under-performance was masked by having so many low picks, including the boon of finish last in an era of extra priority pics.

What set us up for this period was the excellent over-performance, rare in St Kilda's history of securing players from other clubs. Prior to that our trading was mainly very poor.

GT, Waldron, Kellet did a fantastic job and delivered GTrain, Powell, Hamill, Penny, Gram and others.

Blight was part of the lure...and ironic that Blight and Watson left a good legacy, not in their coaching, but in players attracted, and in low draft picks getting some good young talent.

The early naughties saw us with the delicious mix of:

* many good 97 Grand Final Players
* a new foreign legion of quality players including genuine STARS.
* many low draft pics, that overcame by and large poor drafting relative to the pics.

[mad saint guy]

Respectable drafting ???

I think we underperformed relative to picks that we had (Look at the Judd fiasco for one), and the under-performance was masked by having so many low picks, including the boon of finish last in an era of extra priority pics.

While not all of our early picks turned out the way they were expected, I don't think you can be too critical of our drafting, particularly as the 'core' was assembled in 2000 and 2001.

2001

Pick 2, Ball - Hugely talented and was our B&F, captain and AA before injuries slowed him down.
Pick 5, X. Clarke - Was perhaps the most exciting youngster in those early days. He was a great talent, just didn't have the genes that would stand up to the demands of AFL footy
Pick 13, Dal Santo - Brilliant pick
Pick 21, Maguire - Good pick, he played some excellent footy for us before his shocking injury and Lyon deciding he wasn't needed
Pick 37, Montagna - Great pick
Pick 49, Houlihan - Never played

In 2000 we picked the two most talented talls in the draft, one of which has become a St Kilda champion, the other never living up to the potential shown in his rising star year but has still managed almost 200 games for us so far.


I absolutely agree that our drafting was horrendous after that up until two years ago. We made the obvious decision in drafting Goddard at pick 1 but after that we never had an abundance of early picks. After that point the main issue wasn't really a case of not using early picks well, but just the overall recruiting mentality was poor - way too much recycling of unskilled players and smokies plucked from nowhere.

[saintsRrising]

2000-2004 is five draft periods.

Doing well in one year..2001....does not make up for under-performing over the 5 years as a group relative to where the picks were taken.

Pick 2, Ball - Hugely talented and was our B&F, captain and AA before injuries slowed him down.
.

While Ball was highly rated, not picking Judd was a huge stuff up...all because the club tried to guess who other clubs would take. We outsmarted ourselves. Judd > Ball (injured or not).

Roo like BJ picked himself.

Kosi was the best No 2 tall...but not picking Didak was in hindsight a mistake. Certianly at the time many were plumbing for Didak at the time. Kosi has been a useful pick, but has suffered from being not quite a ruckman (height and body positioning), and not quite a key forward (mobility and body positioning).

But let's ignore the first round picks....oer the 5 years our picks as a whole under-performed.

It was our trading....and the boon of early picks....that pushed us up. It was not our ability to out-perform by drafting well.

Which links back to the OP....success comes by trading AND drafting well....and then in how you apply what you have got.

[gringo]

We lost our way trying to buy up list plugs like Fergus Watts and Barry Brookes. We gave away first rounders for them. GT wanted Dean Cox but got brooksy -so much worse off because of that.

[SaintPav]

Respectable drafting ???

I think we underperformed relative to picks that we had (Look at the Judd fiasco for one), and the under-performance was masked by having so many low picks, including the boon of finish last in an era of extra priority pics.

While not all of our early picks turned out the way they were expected, I don't think you can be too critical of our drafting, particularly as the 'core' was assembled in 2000 and 2001.

2001

Pick 2, Ball - Hugely talented and was our B&F, captain and AA before injuries slowed him down.
Pick 5, X. Clarke - Was perhaps the most exciting youngster in those early days. He was a great talent, just didn't have the genes that would stand up to the demands of AFL footy
Pick 13, Dal Santo - Brilliant pick
Pick 21, Maguire - Good pick, he played some excellent footy for us before his shocking injury and Lyon deciding he wasn't needed
Pick 37, Montagna - Great pick
Pick 49, Houlihan - Never played

In 2000 we picked the two most talented talls in the draft, one of which has become a St Kilda champion, the other never living up to the potential shown in his rising star year but has still managed almost 200 games for us so far.


I absolutely agree that our drafting was horrendous after that up until two years ago. We made the obvious decision in drafting Goddard at pick 1 but after that we never had an abundance of early picks. After that point the main issue wasn't really a case of not using early picks well, but just the overall recruiting mentality was poor - way too much recycling of unskilled players and smokies plucked from nowhere.

Excellent and concise summation.

[SaintPav]

We lost our way trying to buy up list plugs like Fergus Watts and Barry Brookes. We gave away first rounders for them. GT wanted Dean Cox but got brooksy -so much worse off because of that.

Please never bring this up again.

[skeptic]

Hey SRS, the 1st pick is the most important because the best players are avialable generally at the top end though you are correct in that it's better to consistetly get your draft picks right... which is i think an area we are improving in. Certainly our late and rookie picks have been pretty good,

Just to clarify my point RE early drafting... I posted this on a different thread just recently

I think what this highlights is the importance of drafting... SPECIFICALLY getting your 1st round pick right. That's the trick to the rebuild... the bottoming out clubs that have nailed the first pick have done well whereas the ones that ala WCE, whilst a club like Melb which hasn't done as well has struggled. Richmond has really struggled but on the back of getting the last few drafts right finally look to be moving up.

Review us for that period...
Riewoldt easily the best of his draft and Kosi whilst not the clear no2 (Burgoyne, Didak, Petrie, Kerr, Newman) he's cleary amongst the top 6-7 and we've got really good value for him.

Ball, Dal, Monty, X, Maguire - it's well documented just exactly how much better we could have done that draft but by the same token - Dal and Monty have both been exceptional value and we got our use out of Maguire.
Ball was very good at number 2 initially (until he got injured) and his departure for nothing is the ultimate determining factor in that being a failed pick... X was an ok choice on form until injuries derailed him too.
Goddard was a clear no 1 in his draft

Raph Clarke was a repectable no 8 with number of better players either side but has outlasted the majority

Whilst not a great player, McQualter was really good value at pick 17 with only about 5 players taken after him providing better value (LeCras, Gwilt, Ivan Maric, Pratt and Knights)

2005 = Sam Gilbert at 33 was pbly the best player left minus Andrew Swallow at 43 (doh) though we may have picked a gem had we kept pick #17 (Watts)

That's actually the cornerstone of the period of success that we had through this era... we did it really well however ultimately though I think our failure with our immediate top picks in 2001 draft was pbly the difference between a few trophies and a few close runs.

Then you look at the period that followed
2006 - Armitage (J.Riewoldt, Frawley following shortly after)
2007 - McEvoy (Rioli, Dangerfield, Harry Taylor)

Both decent players but clearly not the best at their picks

2008 - Lynch (Shuey, Ballantyne, Trengrove, Zharakis, Redden, Beams) - clear fail
2009 - Winmar (Christenson) - very weak late draft

Success follows getting the top picks right - it looks as though we're doing okay'ish recently but really IMO I really hope we're developing our recruiting team

Though I point out as someone else did in that thread 08-09 may have been influenced by a need to fill holes

[bergholt]

bulls***.

most of these clubs did basically the same things, just that some executed worse than others. your argument is that those who ended up being successful ended up being successful, and those who failed failed. obvious and useless.

all you're saying is that we should try to rebuild well, rather than trying to rebuild badly. not very useful advice.

[CURLY]

The Brookes and Watts trades where very good trades at the time. No one could have predicted the serious injuries both recieved.

[Con Gorozidis]

I dont think we are trying the total re-build.
I dont know the inner workings of the list mgt team - but I think we can make some strong inferences from their signing patterns this past year.
The give-away is that we made signing the mid-aged guys on the list the priority. We signed up Armo, Ben, Gwilt, Rhys, Geary, Steven, Simpkin, Gwilt earlier in the season. Then once we had them we moved on to the kids and the older guys. So I think this shows Pelchen and Bainsey are very aware that the core age group 22-26 is our weakness and we need those guys to get us through the next few years. We cant just go all out for kids - cos once the older guys leave - we will be totally stuffed. So I think the common sense call is to get a few more guys in that mid age bracket (also evidenced by Saad, Milera, Wilkes pre-season) to prevent us sinking too low. 'Weaker' clubs like us just cant afford a total rebuild in the competitive environment we are in. So i think we have done the right thing.

[Con Gorozidis]

The Brookes and Watts trades where very good trades at the time. No one could have predicted the serious injuries both recieved.

mmm. I think both trades were heavily questioned at the time. Who uses a first rounder on another teams cast offs??? Not many clubs have done that in AFL draft history. Fact is they weren't getting games at their clubs (Crows and Port) and then we spent a first rounder on them.. That would be simply unthinkable nowadays.
So not sure how you can say they were 'good trades' at the time.

[CURLY]

The Brookes and Watts trades where very good trades at the time. No one could have predicted the serious injuries both recieved.

mmm. I think both trades were heavily questioned at the time. Who uses a first rounder on another teams cast offs??? Not many clubs have done that in AFL draft history. Fact is they weren't getting games at their clubs (Crows and Port) and then we spent a first rounder on them.. That would be simply unthinkable nowadays.
So not sure how you can say they were 'good trades' at the time.

Watts was a 20 year old key forward that had just kicked 10 goals in a SANFL Semi Final so he was defanately no cast off. Brooks was a 200cm 19 year old ruckman forward. Both where very highly sought after.

[White Winmar]

bulls***.

most of these clubs did basically the same things, just that some executed worse than others. your argument is that those who ended up being successful ended up being successful, and those who failed failed. obvious and useless.

all you're saying is that we should try to rebuild well, rather than trying to rebuild badly. not very useful advice.

Of course we should do it well, but you've missed the point. There are significant differences in the way the successful clubs and unsuccessful clubs have operated. The successful clubs have invested heavily in player development, and have actively pursued non-traditional sources for recruitment. We will only rebuild well if we innovate, rather than merely follow. That was the point of my original post. Thanks for your incredibly insightful analysis. The irony is your last statement somes up your contribution perfectly. As they say, better to remain silent and appear to be an idiot, than offer up something that removes all doubt.

[jays]

we will be much better next year

[bergholt]

Of course we should do it well, but you've missed the point. There are significant differences in the way the successful clubs and unsuccessful clubs have operated. The successful clubs have invested heavily in player development...

i understood your point, but you've got no evidence to prove it. you're saying that melbourne didn't spend on player development, if i understand correctly. is that actually true? where is the financial data to prove it? maybe they did spend, but they did it badly. it's not exactly a panacea.

...and have actively pursued non-traditional sources for recruitment.

i'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, or what the positive effect was. I know that melbourne pushed the envelope by recruiting weetra, woneamirri and jurrah in successive seasons from fairly untapped aboriginal regions. is that the sort of thing you're talking about?

We will only rebuild well if we innovate, rather than merely follow.

nah, i still disagree. "innovation" means taking risks, and we have relatively limited money. the pies can afford to take risks. i'm not sure we can - we take risks and then we've neglected more predictably useful channels. it's a risk-reward trade off and depends on your appetite for risk.

[spert]

I just think our recruiting has been ordinary and directionless for quite a few years, and I can't blame it all on lack of resources. It has been rare to see any Geelong players with poor skills by hand or foot, from their inexperienced up, and these are natural skills that get identified at recruiting time. I hope we get some smarts happening from hereon in in the recruiting area.

[White Winmar]

Check the football department "spends", Bergholt, and you'll see where the discrepancies are appearing between the successful and the unsuccessful. Have you not heard of all the talk on placing a salary cap type limit on these areas? As for Melbourne taking risks recruiting aboriginal players, there's hardly anything new or innovative about that. The fact the guys you mentioned have failed to deliver has everything to do with how they were managed once they were brought in. Clubs have been recruiting indigenous players from all over the country for years. A better example might be the way the Hawks brought in the likes of Breust, Puopolo and Smith, players who would previously have been overlooked because of their age and so-called "profile".

[noob]

Sam Fisher has been our best pick over the last 10 years.

[Con Gorozidis]

The Brookes and Watts trades where very good trades at the time. No one could have predicted the serious injuries both recieved.

mmm. I think both trades were heavily questioned at the time. Who uses a first rounder on another teams cast offs??? Not many clubs have done that in AFL draft history. Fact is they weren't getting games at their clubs (Crows and Port) and then we spent a first rounder on them.. That would be simply unthinkable nowadays.
So not sure how you can say they were 'good trades' at the time.

Watts was a 20 year old key forward that had just kicked 10 goals in a SANFL Semi Final so he was defanately no cast off. Brooks was a 200cm 19 year old ruckman forward. Both where very highly sought after.