good article with Peltchen on your drafting strategy for 2005 and beyond
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=234603
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=234603
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Article on Hawks draft strategy
- Thread starter GoOsH1
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Thanks Goosh, glad to see the 'best available' line being used.
Hope that's what they stick with draft day.
Hope that's what they stick with draft day.
RustyHawk
Brownlow Medallist
Veteran
10k Posts
Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2021
Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2021
Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2020
Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2020
Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2019
Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2019
That worries me just a little. If we followed that strategy last year, we would have drafted Tambling instead of Roughead.
In this years draft, things may just go our way that we end up with, for instance, a Ryder, Clark & a Kennedy. 3 Ruckman? All from WA? Hmmm
Have my doubts
In this years draft, things may just go our way that we end up with, for instance, a Ryder, Clark & a Kennedy. 3 Ruckman? All from WA? Hmmm
Have my doubts
big buddy38
Senior List
- May 4, 2005
- 264
- 0
- Other Teams
- hawthorn
Ryder is the only genuine ruckman among them, Kennedy and Clark are big key forwards. One of the top young midfielders would be handy though.
RustyHawk
Brownlow Medallist
Veteran
10k Posts
Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2021
Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2021
Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2020
Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2020
Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2019
Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2019
The point being that maybe we have identified we need a "small midfielder" and yet by way the draft falls, these 3 guys are the "next best" available in the draft.
I just fail to see how this strategy will help us. Seems to straightjacketed, plus a Tambling instead of a Roughead, no way.
I just fail to see how this strategy will help us. Seems to straightjacketed, plus a Tambling instead of a Roughead, no way.
of course they are going to say 'best available'. they said that last year as well (bucky before the draft). they are not going to be giving their drafting strategy away to the media before the draft. They can take who they like and then claim they took the 'best' available'.RustyHawk said:
don't read too much into what they say to the media, and i reckon they know what they are doing so don't get too stressed.
cschreuder61 said:
Spot on, Schreuders.
They could take either Hurn, Ellis, Ryder or Kennedy with pick 3. The only thing we can be certain of is whoever they take, they'll be describing them as the "best" player on offer after the event.
Its much ado about nothing really.
As opposed to what? Placing photos of all potential draftees on a wall and throwing darts at them while blindfolded?Grendel said:
There seems to be an oversimplification of the argument between drafting strategies "best available" as opposed to "drafting for need", particularly when the Roughead vs Tambling comparisons start. If Tambling were available at pick three this year I would be disappointed if the club did not draft him over any of the KPP's available this year. FWIW I reckon Tambling would go with the first selection if he was available for drafting this year.
Our list is so thin that the only time when the "best available" would not suit our list would be if a one paced but talented inside midfielder was the next highly rated player (Hurn maybe?). Last year was different in that not only was our list thin but in Clarko's mind we were chronically short of KPP's (with him believing that full seasons out of Holland, Barker and Hay was extremely unlikely). While we do lack talent and depth this year there are no stand-out weaknesses.
West Coast on the other hand have enough small/medium sized players of quality to overlook the next best player and concentrate on the best KPP's in the draft. WC would be one of the few clubs who are in the enviable position of being able to to identify a single weakness in their list and act upon it.
I think Pelchen is on the money, until we are in a position like West Coast and can narrow our weaknesses down to a specific area then we should always go "best available". The exception to the rule is if we have an over supply of talent in one particular type for example "one paced inside midfielders" for us or if we were in Brisbane's position we shouldn't be drafting Ruckman.
The main reason why drafting "best available" is better is because you are far more likely to get a better quality player and the more quality players that are on the list increase the chances of the ultimate success.
The reason why "drafting for need" is not going to end in a good result long term is because the club has no control over which type of player will be good in a particular draft. This will eventually lead to wasting high draft picks on players which could well have been picked up later in the draft while ignoring obvious available talent (Griffen for instance).
Our list is so thin that the only time when the "best available" would not suit our list would be if a one paced but talented inside midfielder was the next highly rated player (Hurn maybe?). Last year was different in that not only was our list thin but in Clarko's mind we were chronically short of KPP's (with him believing that full seasons out of Holland, Barker and Hay was extremely unlikely). While we do lack talent and depth this year there are no stand-out weaknesses.
West Coast on the other hand have enough small/medium sized players of quality to overlook the next best player and concentrate on the best KPP's in the draft. WC would be one of the few clubs who are in the enviable position of being able to to identify a single weakness in their list and act upon it.
I think Pelchen is on the money, until we are in a position like West Coast and can narrow our weaknesses down to a specific area then we should always go "best available". The exception to the rule is if we have an over supply of talent in one particular type for example "one paced inside midfielders" for us or if we were in Brisbane's position we shouldn't be drafting Ruckman.
The main reason why drafting "best available" is better is because you are far more likely to get a better quality player and the more quality players that are on the list increase the chances of the ultimate success.
The reason why "drafting for need" is not going to end in a good result long term is because the club has no control over which type of player will be good in a particular draft. This will eventually lead to wasting high draft picks on players which could well have been picked up later in the draft while ignoring obvious available talent (Griffen for instance).
encouraging to see that there is at least some foresight in the strategy going forward rather than the hair brained 1970s idealogy that talls win flags.....diamond cut midfields mixed with plenty of ticker win flags...and don't forget it 
Bojangles17 said:encouraging to see that there is at least some foresight in the strategy going forward rather than the hair brained 1970s idealogy that talls win flags.....diamond cut midfields mixed with plenty of ticker win flags...and don't forget it
Actually, a strong balanced structure wins flags.
This entails:
* A quality spread of midfielders, including a sound mix of in and under inside types with pacy skilled outside options.
* A strong complement of KPP down the spine, involving players with better than average skills, mobility and potent marking capability.
* A viable contingent of offensive & defensive peripheral players, who as an overall group possess good skills & smarts.
* A capable ruck presence.
Had West Coast not been so lacking in component 2, they would've bolted the premiership in.
CyberKev said:
remind me once again of the swans riches in the KPP department....according to your theory the saints would have bolted in , history told us differently
Bojangles17 said:remind me once again of the swans riches in the KPP department....according to your theory the saints would have bolted in , history told us differently
Barry Hall, Adam Goodes, Leo Barry, Craig Bolton, Lewis Roberts-Thomson with top of the range 3rd talls Ryan Okeefe and Michael Oloughlin. Does that remind you of anything.
Back Pocket Rocket said:
sure does, with the exception of Barry Hall none of the others are genuine KPP, more like flankers masquerading as KPP..... thats not to say it hasn't been an effective mix yet not too many challenged those in the AA side for KP posts...which supports my original point that its the engine room that wins flags the balance can be engineered like the swans have done to greater effect than what the saints were able to achieve with an embarrassment of riches in KP
I guess the Saints downfall had nothing to do with the fact that they were missing 2 of their KPP + multiple other key players + playing several players that were clearly underdone.
At any rate, the Sydney win was a freak occurence.
Even for all the good fortune they had, and allowing for the dearth of capable talls in the West Coast line-up, the Eagles would still have won had Hall not played.
It also need be noted that Sydney wouldn't have got past the Cats, if the Cats had of had a strong key forward or two.
From a Richmond perspective, do you not think that a lack of a strong CHB presence hurt the side this year? It was also noticeable how fragile the side was when Richo went down a couple of minutes into the game with Carlton. The Blues were enduring their worst losing streak in over a century, but beat you comfortably with the Bull off the paddock.
At any rate, the Sydney win was a freak occurence.
Even for all the good fortune they had, and allowing for the dearth of capable talls in the West Coast line-up, the Eagles would still have won had Hall not played.
It also need be noted that Sydney wouldn't have got past the Cats, if the Cats had of had a strong key forward or two.
From a Richmond perspective, do you not think that a lack of a strong CHB presence hurt the side this year? It was also noticeable how fragile the side was when Richo went down a couple of minutes into the game with Carlton. The Blues were enduring their worst losing streak in over a century, but beat you comfortably with the Bull off the paddock.
Bojangles17 said:encouraging to see that there is at least some foresight in the strategy going forward rather than the hair brained 1970s idealogy that talls win flags.....diamond cut midfields mixed with plenty of ticker win flags...and don't forget it
If West Coast had a couple of good talls in their team they would have won the flag this season. Funny that "talls" is a "70s concept. The Hawks won plenty of flags in the 80s with Dunstall, Brereton, Mew, Langford in the spine, Kangaroos had a man named Carey, and the Lions have done pretty well with Lynch, Brown, Leppitsch and Michael. Cannot win a flag without quality talls no matter how good the midfield is.
PS .. I understand Richmond supporters still trying to justfy their selection of Tambling but it's not very convincing.
Adelaide Hawk said:
I don't knock them for taking Tambling, who I still think will be a good get over the long haul, but its a bit silly for Tiger fans to argue against the value of KPPs when their current side is almost totally dependent on one.
Adelaide Hawk said:
Yeah we're still agonising over the one vote the selectors awarded Buddy in the rising star.....compelling evidence that.....Tambling will win it next year
PS...you forgot one small point re the Lions...3 brownlow medalists Aker, Voss Black....where do they play again? get back to the blackboard fella you'll need to be a whole lot more convincing than dredging stats from the 80s....lol ....that was twenty years ago
Bojangles17 said:PS...you forgot one small point re the Lions...3 brownlow medalists Aker, Voss Black....where do they play again? get back to the blackboard fella you'll need to be a whole lot more convincing than dredging stats from the 80s....lol ....that was twenty years ago
LOL.
The current West Coast side had the last two Brownlow Medallists in its midfield, + the reigning runner-up, plus a few other quality types to boot, which may explain why the side was able to dominate centre clearances and inside 50s.
Imagine if they'd had the likes of Alistair Lynch & Jono Brown up forward to exploit all that inside-50 ball.
Main Man said:
I can go one better than that MM I can actually comprehend as well...more than I can say for the likes of you , how many sides did the WC leave in their wake fool......they made the GF on the back of their diamond cut midfield.....but dont worry with the Hawks outdated approach to recruitment , they always say that fashions turn the full circle......lil Al's plan might just be back in the frame by the close of the decade..
CyberKev said:
That souinds like the Hawks of the 80's and 91 so I would have to agree entirley
Bojangles17 said:remind me once again of the swans riches in the KPP department....according to your theory the saints would have bolted in , history told us differently
ABSOLUTELY the worst thing would be to take recruiting policy from sydneys flag.
It was a one-off.
Even worse if enough teams copy the swans the sport is stuffed.
LMAOCyberKev said:
I know i will percieved as bias but Bo has seriously carved you blokes up .
On the above point ...
Injured - Kellaway , Gaspar , N Brown that day , then Richo goes down in the opening minutes ....... take the two key forwards and the two key backmen , four out of our top 6 leaders and our most experienced players to boot , out of any side and they will struggle .
Feeble point Cyberkev....aside from the fact that it was a largely out of context performance for the season based over the period of the 22 home and aways
IDGAF said:
If nothing else, you at least got it right with the "bias" call...
Talking of feeble points...
Hawthorn were missing a lot more than that when they comfortably accounted for Carlton the weekend before, and the Blues were smashed by 99 points by a weak Essendon line-up the week after beating you guys.
Still, I thankyou for confirming the weakness of Bo's point by totally supporting mine.
You were missing your key KPP players Richo & Gaspar and as a consequence your midfield was unable to overcome the weakest Carlton side in history.
Put simply, to argue that good KPP are insignificant factors in the creation of a strong football side is embarrassing in the extreme.
Case closed.
