Poor Recruiting record

[congorozides]

Here's a very crude analysis of the St Kilda vs Port (and I mean crude)


St Kilda



Port Adelaide







If you look at the full lists and the games returned, I can't say I'm that impressed by Port's performance vs ours.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/td-st-kilda-saints

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/td-p ... aide-power

(I presume these are correct but I did note one error in listing Kosi as a priority)

Top work! Thats really interesting. IM glad im not the only one with som spare time at work to nut these things out.

[congorozides]

Please dont compare our list to that of Collingwood and say they are better because of games won. Swap our draw with theres for one and the win loss ratio would be the same. Freo at the G on a 5 degree Friday night hardly compares to our road trip with 24 fit players and didnt play Port at Port so theres another loss they didnt encounter. Stats about players under a certain age mean jackshyte as people alter there list to suit there arguement eg St kilda has the best group under 25 but if I said 23 its not as impressive. When comparing these other young talents lets see how they perform when they havent got the cream arond them like Priddis Rosa Lecras this Friday and Goldsack play on Barry Hall and Fev as Gwilt had to. Our list is very good all we need is them on the park.

My point is very simple- and i have been concerned about this for a few years - is that we have stopped producing players in the last 2 years. We were doing really well from 2003 to 2005 but you need to find 2 players per year on average. This process has stopped in the last 2 years. Come up with any excuse/theory you like. But we have an issue. Where is our young talent and why arent the young guys already at the club improving?
I mean if you arent frustrated by the lack of progress of our under 23 guys you should be. Some playars wont make it - i know that. But besides Gilbert , no young guys have been able to make the Grade in the past 2 years. There is something wrong there with the coaching or conditioning or teaching or something.

[saintsRrising]

I think we turned the process back on 12 months ago atera few years of neglect.

[JeffDunne]

Yeah, last draft was a HUGE success.

sRr, rather than attempting a poor imitation of Andrew from Hawthorn, try putting up something of substance on the debate.

[CURLY]

What was Attard? Played 20 games so theres your 2 Gilbert and Attard for last year. Armitage Howard and Allen will be players that will play more next year but there on our list so theres another 3 whats your problem remember only 22 blokes out of 38 can play each week so not all are going to or are needed to play each week.

[busso mick]

The main reason that Port have improved in leaps and bounds this year is most of their recruits from last year have all played senior footy this year, and a lot of them very well. It is very unfair to expect the first year players to come in and play well, but it is fair to say in recent times that our young recruits have not been as good as some other clubs. There may be extenuating circumstances like injury (ie Watts, Allen) so you can never generalise in these things, but recruiting and list management is a very important factor in the success of footy clubs.

There is also the issue of GT and Lyon playing mature footballers that weren't in great form (ie Thompson, Voss, Rix) and not giving the younger blokes a go. The only reason that Gilbert got a go this year was we were forced to by injury, even though he had shown some good form in the VFL. He is now a walk up start into our best 22.

If next year the likes of Armitage, Allen and Watts can force their way into the firsts and stay there then we can revisit this argument and say that we have been successful in our recruiting. Some clubs like Collingwood have had no choice to play their youngsters this year due to a lot of injuries, and they have stepped up to the higher level and performed. It's all about getting the opportunity and grabbing it, in our case team selection has been very conservative in this regard in the past few years.

The recycling of players from other clubs is another issue, but it is fair to say we have picked up some duds when a younger option would have been better. Fremantle did this with Tarrant and Solomon and went backwards this year. Sydney are now left with an ageing list with little youth on the horizon. Unless you have a stream of youngsters coming through your club you are going to tread water. Thats not to say it is an easy process, far from it, but being conservative and playing safe with experienced recruits is no better than going for youth IMO.

[JeffDunne]

Gilbert?

I think you should check your facts.

Attard was the last player we picked in the rookie draft so he was more luck than good management (he had been on Brisbane's list for two years).

As for the others definately too early to call a success or a failure.

[saint66au]

Some clubs like Collingwood have had no choice to play their youngsters this year due to a lot of injuries, and they have stepped up to the higher level and performed

Excellent point. Look at us 2001-2003. Very similar scenario. Kosi won the Rising Star playing CHB cos we had noone else to play there. Dal, X and Goose were all rushed into the bigtime due to horrendous injury lists.

[congorozides]

What was Attard? Played 20 games so theres your 2 Gilbert and Attard for last year. Armitage Howard and Allen will be players that will play more next year but there on our list so theres another 3 whats your problem remember only 22 blokes out of 38 can play each week so not all are going to or are needed to play each week.

Cool. Fair enough. Ill take Attard for 2007. Gilbert and Raph probably count for 2006.
That gives me two for 2006 and one for 2007. Ill count Sam Fisher and Mont for 2005 for my 2. And for 2003 and 04 we probably get 3 each year. So I guess we are doing ok. Only 2007 was a bit disappointing then.

You cant count the other 3 (Armo Howard and Allen) until they get a regular game. Otherwise the discussion becomes pointless and we will start counting Stewie Loewes sperm as a potential superstar and sound like Collingwood supporters who reckon everyone on their list is the next Superstar .

[CURLY]

Collingwood had a horrendus record with injries your kidding right? Malthouse played his kids because his list is so shallow and he only played them when he knew he could get awy with it. Look at the night against Richmond they had there best team minus three players so they played Toovey Cox and Dick . They beat Richmond by a couple of goals who were in the middle of a massive losing streak. All of a sudden the media writes about how young they are and how courageous they are[PLEASE LOOK AT THE FACTS PEOPLE) If we were at full strength and could play Howard Armitage and Allen in bit roles beleive me your opinion would change on our recruiting.

[congorozides]

All good points busso mick

[congorozides]

Please dont compare our list to that of Collingwood and say they are better because of games won. Swap our draw with theres for one and the win loss ratio would be the same. Freo at the G on a 5 degree Friday night hardly compares to our road trip with 24 fit players and didnt play Port at Port so theres another loss they didnt encounter. Stats about players under a certain age mean jackshyte as people alter there list to suit there arguement eg St kilda has the best group under 25 but if I said 23 its not as impressive. When comparing these other young talents lets see how they perform when they havent got the cream arond them like Priddis Rosa Lecras this Friday and Goldsack play on Barry Hall and Fev as Gwilt had to. Our list is very good all we need is them on the park.

Ok - You still telling me the SAints are better than the Pies. They just won 2 finals with 9 guys under 23.

If you think Saints are all that good you are kidding yourself. We have too many muppets and we are not producing enough good young players (gilbert aside). where is the future at st kilda?

[JeffDunne]

I'm disappointed those that bag our recruiting weren't prepared to do further analysis on the comparison I detailed above (or with any other club for that matter).

[CURLY]

I would of preferred to play West Coast on Friday night than Richmond, look at the players they had out WC they were the Eagles in name only everything that had made them a good side was taken away. Collingwood finished one win in front of us and didnt play Port awy and Freo at Perth sometimes thats the differance and in this case it was.

[Otiman]

The 2005/6 draft was the real killer.


17: Fergus Watts (Trade)
33: Sam Gilbert
49: Michael Rix
63: Philip Raymond
71: Justin Sweeney

Most of the other players in that draft are currently in the best 22 on their respective AFL lists. We have only Sam Gilbert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_AFL_Draft

[congorozides]

I'm disappointed those that bag our recruiting weren't prepared to do further analysis on the comparison I detailed above (or with any other club for that matter).

was a very good analysis. no question. i was impressed.
I still reckon saints have been bad at recruiting in the past 2-3 years.

[JeffDunne]

TBH Con, it's not my analysis. I simply lifted the figures from the website quoted.

While it doesn't take into account quality, it does give a good raw indication of the return from draft picks used.

Looking at the return club-by-club, we actually stack up pretty well compared to others.

[Joffa Burns]

On recruiting I see our position really simplistically.

We had a bevy of top picks between 2000 - 2003 and picked 'no brainers' such as Rooey, Kosi, BJ etc and they have proven their worth.

We didn't need the resourses of other clubs when we had these picks.

As we moved up the ladder in '03, '04 & '05 the task became a little more difficult and this was reflected in the talent secured.

I think we have paid a very heavy price for drafting cast off hacks like McGough and Ackland and have paid the penalty for trading first round picks for the like of Watts. We not have for what ever reason the luxury of a decent rookie list to develop which is essential in footy these days.

Bottom line is I don't believe we will have fared any better or worse than most clubs overall but have not been able to consistently pull the talent late in the draft that clubs like Brisbane have regularly secured and have not had any impact from a Rookie list when clubs such as WC have profited substancially.

IMO recruiting is as important as any role in the club and you should be at the forefront in resources in this area and as a mid range club recruiting can be the difference between a finals finish and a bottom four finish.

[CURLY]

Maybe you Congorides should be in charge of recruiting and we will expect 200 game ALL AUST from all draft picks no misses will be accepted.

[Otiman]

I think we have paid a very heavy price for drafting cast off hacks like McGough and Ackland and have paid the penalty for trading first round picks for the like of Watts. We not have for what ever reason the luxury of a decent rookie list to develop which is essential in footy these days.

Correct. The footy department realised this mistake, and take a look at the previous draft.

Armitage
Howard
Allen
Jones
Attard
Van Rheenen
Eddy
Geary
Wall

That's 9 possible 'kids' of which any one could be a success, and Attard has been the best of the bunch so far, at Rookie Pick #62: The SECOND LAST pick in the rookie draft. Surely this is a far better success story than the Rodan one that commentators love to dwell on.

[JeffDunne]

JB, I accept that is the common perception, but really have we performed that poorly with later picks in the draft compared to clubs with better resources?

The figures I quoted for Port and St Kilda take into account all drafts since 2000.

If you look at the return clubs have had from 3rd & 4th+ rounders then we don't fair too poorly. Sure you need to take into account quality and the strength of lists and the ability of players to break into the starting 22, but statistically we don't stack up as poorly as some would like to suggest.

[JeffDunne]

That's 9 possible 'kids' of which any one could be a success, and Attard has been the best of the bunch so far, at Rookie Pick #62: The SECOND LAST pick in the rookie draft. Surely this is a far better success story than the Rodan one that commentators love to dwell on.

If we picked him that late wouldn't it suggest we didn't rate him that highly either?

It's easy to pass off a selection like that as a work of genius, but IMO any success from a late selection like that is more luck than good management.

[Otiman]

Or it could suggest we were quite confident of him not being scouted by opposition teams. Remember he was training with us leading up to the Draft.

Call it the "Reverse Brad Howard" if you please.

[saintsRrising]

Here's a very crude analysis of the St Kilda vs Port (and I mean crude)


St Kilda



Port Adelaide





If you look at the full lists and the games returned, I can't say I'm that impressed by Port's performance vs ours.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/td-st-kilda-saints

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/td-p ... aide-power

(I presume these are correct but I did note one error in listing Kosi as a priority)

And what precisely is this pretty meaningnless table meant to indicate?????


Games played in itself is a not a measure of success....nor of quality.

In the H & A each team plays 22 games with 22 players.

You have to field a team of 22 each week......and indeed when you have appalling injury and player conditioning management you are going to give lots of players games.

[meher baba]

This has got to be the most tedious discussion topic on Saintsational.

There are two diametrically-opposed views among posters on this forum, and never the twain shall meet.

Since we came good in this era with our current core list at the end of 2003, we have picked up Sam Fisher, Jason Gram, Raph Clarke and Sam Gilbert who all appear to be definite starters in the top 22 when fully fit. And Cain Ackland is still playing senior AFL for another club. And M Clarke did the job for which he was recruited.

Watts is a potential gun who has been injured most of the time (if he gets fit, he could be an important contributor in 2008 IMO) and McQualter has been a major disppointment: but I'm sure most of the clubs below us who were looking for midfielders would have snapped him up if we had passed on him. And, given that he was a prominent junior (as was Watts), I don't really see how extra recruiting resources would have helped us. Nor is it clear to me that there has been a case for giving McQ more time in the seniors: Lyon seems even less inclined to do this than Thomas, so it isn't something specific to the old regime.

Raymond, Callaghan, Sweeney and and McGough (although I still think he might have had something to offer, but we'll never know now) were wastes of picks 63, 66, 71 and 49 respectively: clearly we're way behind the pace not picking up players of All-Australian quality with these picks.

Gwilt, also taken with a late round pick, might still amount to something, along with Armitage, Birss, Gardiner, Allen and Howard. It's too early to say (although I have my doubts about Gardi).

Brooks was recruited years ago: I don't really see what is the point of harping on and on about him all the time.

These, in a nutshell, are the facts. Those who think they could have done a whole lot better are having themselves on: recruiting is an easy job with the benefit of hindsight.

Likewise any nonsense about "hasn't Lyon done well in bringing Gilbert on". Gilbert was given seniors exposure last season has come on at the rate that any second round pick would be expected to develop.

And as for Attard: look, he was extraordinarily good value for a mature rookie. But if any player epitomises the word "mediocre talent", it is him. If we want to win a flag in the next few seasons, we will need to field a team containing 22 players who are better than Attard. End of story.