- Banned
- #151
If true, this is more of an indictment on drafting and development at Freo than a sound recruitment strategy. If you want Freo to remain a side of plodders than wins 8 games a year, that's the best way to do it.
Another 3 delistings
- Thread starter Cameron_K
- Start date
- Tagged users None
If we did that our club would resemble a WAFL or VFL team. Can't seriously expect us to win flags with that method.
Yes. that's because recruiters collectively are a bunch of dumb-arses. They all try to play this game of "look how clever I am" by picking some random kid @ pick 50 who really "goes" or who "can play" or whatever the current buzz-word is. Those kids usually, not sometimes but usually spud it up from day one and then get de-listed after three years.
Recruiters don't play the percentages they play the smart-arse and because they are all doing the same thing (from the different clubs) they don't get found out. I agree that our recruiters are better than most but I don't think they have been pushing the envelope as far as they should re mature aged players.
Angelus
Senior List
The problem I have with your view is that you seem to think that every Mature Age Pick will play off, while the majority of the young ND picks will fail.
That just isn't the case, and ONLY because Freo has seen such success with it's later mature aged picks can you form this view. The rest of the competition has also tried our tactic but failed and as a result decided to resorted to return to the ND pool of younger players.
Also, how about giving our young recruits some time before writing them off, they are at a disadvantage to the mature agers because....surprise surprise, they aren't physically developed enough.......
That just isn't the case, and ONLY because Freo has seen such success with it's later mature aged picks can you form this view. The rest of the competition has also tried our tactic but failed and as a result decided to resorted to return to the ND pool of younger players.
Also, how about giving our young recruits some time before writing them off, they are at a disadvantage to the mature agers because....surprise surprise, they aren't physically developed enough.......
You keep coming up with that "plodder" line to describe anyone who doesn't get drafted as a pimple-faced kid just coming back from "schoolies". I just don't buy it.
How sound was our 2009 drafting strategy of ...
J Houghton @ #36
J Crichton @ #48
D Roberton @ #49
J Bollenhagen @ #52 ?
After that draft I'm sure we said how we couldn't believe player X, Y and Z lasted so long in the draft. Every club says it. Every club also says they are absolutely thrilled with the players they got.
- Banned
- #156
I've watched enough of other footy teams to see that players over 21 make far less impact than players under 21, when correctly developed. How many starting midfields of premiership sides have had mostly mature age recruits in them over the past decade?
Comparing Freo's drafting to itself is meaningless, but that seems to be what you want to do. We're notably shit at drafting. If you want to build a side that beats six or so sides a year based on them being more mature, then go right ahead. A side like that won't have the ability to compete with the likes of Geelong or Collingwood.
You continually bang on about mature agers, but the fact is, we have plenty. It's not a lack of maturity that saw Freo get belted most times this season. It was a lack of talent. Lower, Mzungu, Van Berlo, Broughton, Silvagni, etc are firmly B graders at best, talent wise.
I can see SNOS & broughts pushing to be named in the AA squad in the next 2-3 yrs.
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,270
- 62,171
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
I'd rate Broughts higher than a B. He's finished top 5 in the Doig every year so far hasn't he? And he's the sort of guy who would slot seamlessly into the Geelong machine and be rated a consistent A performer every week.
And Silvagni played like an A+ defender for half of the year once he finally came back. Time will tell if that's really his level though or if he was just having a purple patch.
And Silvagni played like an A+ defender for half of the year once he finally came back. Time will tell if that's really his level though or if he was just having a purple patch.
Silvagni, Broughton and Ballantyne should reach A grade status under Lyon. Definitely Silvagni.
Plus you forgot to add one definite A grader based on 2010: M. Barlow, 3 votes.
Other than that, you're right. Mature-agers don't factor into 'best available' and should only be picked up to fill perceived holes in squad/age depth or to add a final piece of the puzzle, i.e. Priddis (inside mid), Barlow (inside mid), Pods (KPF), Silvagni (KPD), Taylor (KPD), Ballantyne (small pacey forward), etc.
You don't build a team around mature-agers, you do it the other way around, which means taking them with late/rookie picks. Factor in that they will survive until later (unless there is firm competition as with Ballantyne) and it becomes a no-brainer.
IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN
Cancelled
- Banned
- #160
Is Mzungu a plodder? Is Barlow a plodder? Is Silvagni a plodder? Is Ballas a plodder? Is I smith for Hawthorn a plodder?
etc.
Angelus
Senior List
The beauty of mature age players in the rookie list is that barring injury, you will be able to see if they have what it takes within the first year. After that, you can delist them without ever wondering of the 'what if' factor. They have mature bodies that only need 1 pre season to get them into AFL level fitness, after that it's all on them. If they can't plug and play then they are out.
While a young player in the rookie list 'Sheapard/Sibo' need time to physically develop before even considering him to play a game, which ends up being 2 years, possibly 3 before you delist them.
With a higher turnover you have the ability to find the odd gems here and there to enable you to pick a Chad Sandilands to leave on your list for 4+ years before he will be WAFL/AFL competent.
While a young player in the rookie list 'Sheapard/Sibo' need time to physically develop before even considering him to play a game, which ends up being 2 years, possibly 3 before you delist them.
With a higher turnover you have the ability to find the odd gems here and there to enable you to pick a Chad Sandilands to leave on your list for 4+ years before he will be WAFL/AFL competent.
I'd be surprised if you haven't picked a half-dozen 100+ gamers in that lot. The reason we got belted last season and the whole thing fell apart is because we didn't have enough depth and didn't have enough competition for spots. Mature agers can handle the tougher pre-seasons without breaking down. Younger players are fading by the time finals come around.
- Banned
- #163
Mzungu has very ordinary disposal at AFL level. Silvagni is a capable defender but also uses the ball poorly.
Barlow and Ballantyne are the only real potential A graders in a side that has recruited mature agers heavily.
- Aug 27, 2010
- 25,041
- 16,014
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Peel Thunder
Some of your points are fair but that is just nonsense. Broughton is a super player and Silvagni is very very capable. Where would we of been over the last couple of years if we hadn't recruited very capable mature age players? And you can't deny that there are some awesome mature players recruited out of the rookie draft. Mzungu and Lower both polled Brownlow votes in their first AFL season.
But yes, the core of any good team should be built from the National draft. However I do agree with the previous poster that using some late picks to guarantee securing promising state league players is a good idea.
- Banned
- #165
Far too often players are called 'stars' or 'A-graders'. Broughton and Silvagni are basically what you said - very capable. I don't think they'll ever be consistent matchwinners. Same with Mzungu and Lower.
Nothing wrong with being a solid B grader at best, but if your midfield is full of solid B graders, you're not going to be competing for premierships very often.
IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN
Cancelled
- Banned
- #166
Then the argument changes from pace to all round game, which applies to every single player taken late in the draft, not just the mature ones.
- Banned
- #167
Those still in the lower leagues are generally there because they lack one or more of pace, fitness or skills, and it is quite often the first.
Not sure why this is even being debated. If you want to see a side full of lower league quality players, go watch a tape of 90s Freo.
From our mature players that is not a bad percentage I would have thought, especially factoring the draft picks used on them. Most on here would at the least consider Broughton and Sylvagni as having a case too. That is from a pool of around 10 mature selections from what I can make out.
By contrast, we have maybe 3 current A-graders with Pavlich, Mundy and Fyfe who have come from the national draft. MacPharlin from trading, Sandilands from the rookie list.
SHill Shall
Club Legend
Err ....... not at all, in fact!!
The key question is whether our youngish midfield has the potential to develop into a core group of A graders. And that only three years after starting from scratch. That's where your views differ from mine and many others.
- Oct 17, 2010
- 4,077
- 6,332
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Washington Commanders, Black Ducks
Not sure what your point is Clay. I agree the draft is the only path to A graders, but you generally need a bunch of high draft picks to do that. The current Geelong and St Kilda squads were built on those picks between 1999 and 2002 (with some help from father/son). Collingwood are a slightly different case, with relatively more focus (other than Pendlebury who should have been a #1 draft pick) on good development of role players.
Without those picks you need to get what A graders you can and supplement with serious footballers with later picks and trading. I reckon we have done well on both counts in the past three or four years - with Hill, Morabito and Fyfe (unless you think these guys won't all be A graders) and Barlow, Mzungu, Broughton etc.
Ultimately you need to get lucky - with your high draft picks working out and a certain percentage of the others ending up being high quality (in the end arguably the best team is the one with the fewest C graders).
IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN
Cancelled
- Banned
- #171
The logic just doesn't make sense.
If a player isn't considered quick enough, then I'm sure that's taken into account, just like any other negative or flaw or lesser positive that causes one player to drop further down the order than another. If it's enough of an issue then they'll be picked later than if it wasn't. You're worth what you're worth.
For a guy who is not an A-Grade defender he's been pretty consistent in beating the opposition's star forwards when required.
- Banned
- #173
He's beaten two. Not enough to be rated A-grade, in my view.
Moo
Premium Platinum
The logic just doesn't make sense.
If a player isn't considered quick enough, then I'm sure that's taken into account, just like any other negative or flaw or lesser positive that causes one player to drop further down the order than another. If it's enough of an issue then they'll be picked later than if it wasn't. You're worth what you're worth.
If you are a mature player you don't get that additional 'potential' pricing factor.
If Pitt was a 23 year old - he would be delisted immediately.
Yes but aren't you saying he does not even have the potential to be A grade?
- Banned
- #175
He's 25 next year. He'll get better as he gets older, but he's a long way off top echelon at the moment. At the same age, McPharlin was a more complete player, and is overall more talented, yet he has straddled the line between A-grade and B-grade for years.
There's nothing wrong with being a solid B-grader. Most of the league aren't even in that category.
Similar threads
- Locked
