Phantom Draft Dinnaz 2023 Draft Compendium

[dinnaz]

it doesnt account for changes in these players roles, as you probably know, in their underage years they are given roles in the team to enter the team, not as a top talent for the year usually, for example a player who is a midfielder will play forward hurting his ability to show his real ability, then in his draft year he is given that primary role of midfielder, boosting his stats, it might even go vice versa, where he gets his primary role as an underager and then tries to add flexibility to his resume in his draft year, hurting his stats ect, stats are useless without context, also it doesnt indicate how good they played or whether they were getting useless poss, like kick ins ect(trust me theres a lot of players who try and find ways to stat pad knowing that people will judge them not on quality but on stats), i think looking at stats should be the last thing you do, 1st see if they can play at a level needed to play AFL competitively.

Of course there are a million other elements involved, and comparing statistics is always imprecise as everyone plays a unique type of footy anyway. It's more of a way to demonstrate/visualise the concepts involved. Personally I think rate of improvement is important, but also sketchy to actually quantify (for all of your listed reasons).
I try to use stat's wherever possible to back up what I see because it's fact and we all should feel the need to cite a source that's better than "trust me bro".

imo the best way to view who can really play is at the state champs, forget state leagues ect, so many look good at the CTL, sanfl u18s and wafl colts to then flop when the pressure is on at the state rep games, thats the real acid test.

I used to think champs were by far the most important factor as all of the best players are on every line. It's a good way to rubber stamp a certifiable gun if they can produce at the highest tier of play.
However for a few reasons I think that I would rather take a the larger body of work at State U18/U19 into account and use the champs as a bit of a tie breaker. (Mainly it's such a small sample size) I do think that PSA footy is too low level and irrelevant though.

• Because the champs are only 4 games usually over a 6 week period, form is a real consideration. You may also have players missing out entirely because of injury.
• Your team is weak so there's less chance to kick goals as a key forward or the alternative where you look good because of the landslide of opportunity.
• There are other better players so you don't get tagged, or you don't get the best defender.

-With only a certain amount of spots available in one team players get pushed to peripheral positions. You may be one of the best midfielders in the state yet forced to play off a flank because others have less utility.

The other thing is that both vic squads are usually very well developed with a lot of depth. There's also a noticeable size difference compared to WA & SA players that most years i'm surprised at how well they compete. I'm thinking that there could be a 3rd victorian team fielded which would be at the same level as the other states.
Because of this i'm leaning towards the view that the majority of WA/SA/Allies prospects are slightly underdeveloped and therefore worse off at the same point (age 18) & in the subsequent champs games. Perhaps comparing the separate competitions year to year is a better guide to as how good someone actually is.

 

[Davo-27]

Of course there are a million other elements involved, and comparing statistics is always imprecise as everyone plays a unique type of footy anyway. It's more of a way to demonstrate/visualise the concepts involved. Personally I think rate of improvement is important, but also sketchy to actually quantify (for all of your listed reasons).
I try to use stat's wherever possible to back up what I see because it's fact and we all should feel the need to cite a source that's better than "trust me bro".



I used to think champs were by far the most important factor as all of the best players are on every line. It's a good way to rubber stamp a certifiable gun if they can produce at the highest tier of play.
However for a few reasons I think that I would rather take a the larger body of work at State U18/U19 into account and use the champs as a bit of a tie breaker. (Mainly it's such a small sample size) I do think that PSA footy is too low level and irrelevant though.

• Because the champs are only 4 games usually over a 6 week period, form is a real consideration. You may also have players missing out entirely because of injury.
• Your team is weak so there's less chance to kick goals as a key forward or the alternative where you look good because of the landslide of opportunity.
• There are other better players so you don't get tagged, or you don't get the best defender.

-With only a certain amount of spots available in one team players get pushed to peripheral positions. You may be one of the best midfielders in the state yet forced to play off a flank because others have less utility.

The other thing is that both vic squads are usually very well developed with a lot of depth. There's also a noticeable size difference compared to WA & SA players that most years i'm surprised at how well they compete. I'm thinking that there could be a 3rd victorian team fielded which would be at the same level as the other states.
Because of this i'm leaning towards the view that the majority of WA/SA/Allies prospects are slightly underdeveloped and therefore worse off at the same point (age 18) & in the subsequent champs games. Perhaps comparing the separate competitions year to year is a better guide to as how good someone actually is.

I agree School footy is too irrelevant, it might be a good indicator of form or potential, but it's not of a high enough quality usually

The reason I put more stock in the champs is because it adds factors that aren't In other competitions, like AFL scouts en mass and AFL interviews during that period of time, press coverage, best talent v best talent ect(also a player can look great at the u18 state level, play rep footy and look average against his peers which a good percentage are of AFL Quality already) form can only slightly influence your chances positively or negatively I believe, as for injury well then of course you look back on performances when not injured, playing out of position is a requirement for those not at the top tiers of talent anyway, might as well get used to it, being in a weak team doesn't hurt you if you're talented it just means you likely have less high end talent or depth within the team.

Victorians aren't always the most physically developed in fact a few years ago SA was and they won the champs as a result of their physical dominance, the Allies were arguably the strongest team and won it this year...

There probably could be a 3rd Vic Team as 55% of draftees in recently history are from Vic, which would mean 3 v 3 competition, but it works fine the way it is and the Vic's don't dominate too much, in the last 2 years yes SA and WA have not been great, but I think it's just a couple poor years, SA should be strong next year and WA in 2025 because u16s has been a good guide for how the u18s fair usually.

 

[dinnaz]

Victorians aren't always the most physically developed in fact a few years ago SA was and they won the champs as a result of their physical dominance, the Allies were arguably the strongest team and won it this year...

I mean the Allies kind of fluked it this year with some absolute top vic talent mixed in with the best 5 players from three other states. Academies which now seem to be churning out top players, along with Tasmania coming good. Of course there will be years where one particular state overachieves from the norm, i'm thinking in a broader sense.

There probably could be a 3rd Vic Team as 55% of draftees in recently history are from Vic, which would mean 3 v 3 competition, but it works fine the way it is and the Vic's don't dominate too much, in the last 2 years yes SA and WA have not been great, but I think it's just a couple poor years, SA should be strong next year and WA in 2025 because u16s has been a good guide for how the u18s fair usually.

SA needs to go to a U19 system because U18s is really weak and I actually think playing a full season of league footy hampers development as guys are generally way out of their depth. Saying that, SA produce more players per capita than anywhere else so they must know what they are doing.
In WA the WAFL needs to sort their shit out as it's horribly dysfunctional. WA should produce 50% more players on top of what they already contribute to the national comp.

 

[Futbolista]

Until people in WA accept that junior numbers and clubs are in decline the we won't have a pool of players large enough to produce the quantity of draft picks which a state of 2.78 million should.

In the last 25 years or so, so many junior clubs have shut down or been forced to amalgamate in the Northern suburbs alone.

South Scarborough JFC, North Innaloo JFC, Woodlands-Doubleview JFC, North Dianella JFC, Mirrabooka JFC, Servite JFC, Takari JFC, Osborne Park JFC, Karrinyup JFC, Nollamara JFC, Girrawheen-Koondoola JFC, Northern Cobras JFC, Northern Districts JFC, Churchlands-Wembley JFC to name just some of the top of my head. There are many other which still exist - but barely - and cannot field teams above high school age.

I don't know how many have amalgamated or shut down in the Eastern and Southern suburbs.

Very few new clubs have been formed to replace them over that time.

It can be 5 or 6 kms between clubs in some areas. That's too far for a junior to walk or ride a bike.

There are more soccer grounds and basketball courts now here and they are close by for most kids. Our new migrants aren't overly excited by Australian Rules Football although those from India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Africa are boosting cricket numbers.

The actual identification process is pretty sound. Any kid who has an inkling of talent makes development squads and progresses from there - barring some in the remote regional areas who just can't commit to the travel or relocation.