List Mgmt. Matthew Clarke Drafting Record at Richmond...

[Meteoric Rise]

"Clarke's picks compared to the rest of the competition amounted to all other clubs being given an extra pick 15 at every second draft compared to what Clarke had to work with." See below.



Thought I might start a separate thread for those interested in discussing this, as it has come up in other threads. Clarke was our chief recruiter from 2016 to 2023 - 8 drafts.

Let's start with what picks he actually took in the first 3 rounds of the draft. I will compare that with the average picks an AFL team took in the same period....

Richmond under Clarke took the following picks in the first 3 rounds at the draft:

9 17 17 20 20 21 25 28 29 29 30 34 40 40 43 43 43 44 46 49 51 53 54 55 24 picks at average 35, draft points index value 12,528.



Average picks AFL clubs took in the first 3 rounds at same drafts(These figures are approximate but close enough to enable a decent comparison):

9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 45 45 45 45 46 46 46 46 24 picks @ average 27.8, draft points index value 16,872


On average clubs took on average - 8 x top 10, 0 x 11-20, 8 x 21-30, 0 x 31-40, 8 x 41-50

Richmond picks taken for comparison - 1 x top 10, 4 x 11-20, 6 x 21-30, 3 x 31-40, 6 x 41-50, 4 x 51+


So we can see Richmond in Clarke's time took the same amount of picks average in the first 3 rounds of the draft, those picks were on average 5-6 places worse off, and crucially the highest value 8 picks taken were 9 17 17 20 20 21 25 28. The average was 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10.

So we would expect appreciably less than average return at the draft over the 8 years of Clarke's reign at the helm. You must also remember that the AFL average includes Richmond's picks, so if you isolated the other 17 clubs without Richmond's included, the value of their picks goes up a little further.

So Clarke took to the draft 24 picks, average pick 35. The other 17 clubs combined took to the draft 24 picks, average pick 27.

The draft points index deficit Clarke had with his draft picks compared to AFL average was 4,344 points. The equivalent of roughly 4 x pick 12 over the 8 years. So it is roughly like everyone else being given a pick 15 in every second draft over and above what Clarke was able to take to the draft. Quite a deficit. Expressed another way, every other club combined had the equivalent of an extra pick 3 and pick 4 over the 8 years compared to Richmond.

I will over time look to add some further analysis and comparisons. Feel free to add any discussion and stats or comparisons.

 

[SunshineBoy]

Too many HBF

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Too many HBF

Picks in the first 3 rounds of the NAB AFL Draft spent on defenders who are not key defenders during Clarke's period in charge of recruiting(from 21 picks overall):

2016 Nil
2017 Nil
2018 Nil
2019 Nil
2020 Nil
2021 17 Brown
2022 49 Smith
2023 Nil

Who are all the half back flankers he wasted picks on?


Picks in first 3 rounds broken down by player type:

Key Forward 43 Fawcett
Key Defender 25 Balta, 54 Nyuon, 9 Gibcus,
Ruck 40 Ryan,
Ruck Forward 20 Coleman-Jones
Inside Mid 20 Collier-Dawkins, 21 Dow, 44 Martyn, 40 McAuliffe
Wing 34 Naish, 43 Ross, 46 Ralphsmith, 29 Banks,
Medium Forward 53 Graham, 17 Higgins, 43 Cumberland, 52 Rioli Jnr, 30 Clarke, 55 Green
Medium Defender 17 Brown, 49 Smith
Mid-Forward 29 Bolton, 28 Sonsie

 

[lizard man]

 

[Tigerbob]

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Come at me with your Matthew Clarke myths and we will put them to the test...

 

[sante]

Are you trying to start a shit fight?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Are you trying to start a shit fight?

Just sticking up for the downtrodden Sante.

 

[Ralll]

Agreed, he has not had the best picks while being the recruiting manager of a team in a dynasty.

In saying that I don't think he has performed well looking at the breakdown of his picks, although judging by the average results of AFL clubs and draft picks they might as well get the boot studder to pick.
It seems easy considering the amount of football these kids play against each other, but in reality it must be difficult considering the outcomes.

Balta, Bolton and Higgins, the best of the rest are AFL standard role players at best.

 

[Barunga Bullet]

who cares! hes gone now. Exciting times ahead for us

 

[Forensi Tiger]

"Clarke's picks compared to the rest of the competition amounted to all other clubs being given an extra pick 15 at every second draft compared to what Clarke had to work with." See below.



Thought I might start a separate thread for those interested in discussing this, as it has come up in other threads. Clarke was our chief recruiter from 2016 to 2023 - 8 drafts.

Let's start with what picks he actually took in the first 3 rounds of the draft. I will compare that with the average picks an AFL team took in the same period....

Richmond under Clarke took the following picks in the first 3 rounds at the draft:

9 17 17 20 20 21 25 28 29 29 30 34 40 40 43 43 43 44 46 49 51 53 54 55 24 picks at average 35, draft points index value 12,528.



Average picks AFL clubs took in the first 3 rounds at same drafts(These figures are approximate but close enough to enable a decent comparison):

9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 45 45 45 45 46 46 46 46 24 picks @ average 27.8, draft points index value 16,872


On average clubs took on average - 8 x top 10, 0 x 11-20, 8 x 21-30, 0 x 31-40, 8 x 41-50

Richmond picks taken for comparison - 1 x top 10, 4 x 11-20, 6 x 21-30, 3 x 31-40, 6 x 41-50, 4 x 51+


So we can see Richmond in Clarke's time took the same amount of picks average in the first 3 rounds of the draft, those picks were on average 5-6 places worse off, and crucially the highest value 8 picks taken were 9 17 17 20 20 21 25 28. The average was 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10.

So we would expect appreciably less than average return at the draft over the 8 years of Clarke's reign at the helm. You must also remember that the AFL average includes Richmond's picks, so if you isolated the other 17 clubs without Richmond's included, the value of their picks goes up a little further.

So Clarke took to the draft 24 picks, average pick 35. The other 17 clubs combined took to the draft 24 picks, average pick 27.

The draft points index deficit Clarke had with his draft picks compared to AFL average was 4,344 points. The equivalent of roughly 4 x pick 12 over the 8 years. So it is roughly like everyone else being given a pick 15 in every second draft over and above what Clarke was able to take to the draft. Quite a deficit. Expressed another way, every other club combined had the equivalent of an extra pick 3 and pick 4 over the 8 years compared to Richmond.

I will over time look to add some further analysis and comparisons. Feel free to add any discussion and stats or comparisons.

Nice work. Love the time spent on it. I assume you are retired, have no friends, are only interested in AFL or are Ben Affleck in The Accountant.

 

[Forensi Tiger]

"Clarke's picks compared to the rest of the competition amounted to all other clubs being given an extra pick 15 at every second draft compared to what Clarke had to work with." See below.



Thought I might start a separate thread for those interested in discussing this, as it has come up in other threads. Clarke was our chief recruiter from 2016 to 2023 - 8 drafts.

Let's start with what picks he actually took in the first 3 rounds of the draft. I will compare that with the average picks an AFL team took in the same period....

Richmond under Clarke took the following picks in the first 3 rounds at the draft:

9 17 17 20 20 21 25 28 29 29 30 34 40 40 43 43 43 44 46 49 51 53 54 55 24 picks at average 35, draft points index value 12,528.



Average picks AFL clubs took in the first 3 rounds at same drafts(These figures are approximate but close enough to enable a decent comparison):

9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 45 45 45 45 46 46 46 46 24 picks @ average 27.8, draft points index value 16,872


On average clubs took on average - 8 x top 10, 0 x 11-20, 8 x 21-30, 0 x 31-40, 8 x 41-50

Richmond picks taken for comparison - 1 x top 10, 4 x 11-20, 6 x 21-30, 3 x 31-40, 6 x 41-50, 4 x 51+


So we can see Richmond in Clarke's time took the same amount of picks average in the first 3 rounds of the draft, those picks were on average 5-6 places worse off, and crucially the highest value 8 picks taken were 9 17 17 20 20 21 25 28. The average was 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10.

So we would expect appreciably less than average return at the draft over the 8 years of Clarke's reign at the helm. You must also remember that the AFL average includes Richmond's picks, so if you isolated the other 17 clubs without Richmond's included, the value of their picks goes up a little further.

So Clarke took to the draft 24 picks, average pick 35. The other 17 clubs combined took to the draft 24 picks, average pick 27.

The draft points index deficit Clarke had with his draft picks compared to AFL average was 4,344 points. The equivalent of roughly 4 x pick 12 over the 8 years. So it is roughly like everyone else being given a pick 15 in every second draft over and above what Clarke was able to take to the draft. Quite a deficit. Expressed another way, every other club combined had the equivalent of an extra pick 3 and pick 4 over the 8 years compared to Richmond.

I will over time look to add some further analysis and comparisons. Feel free to add any discussion and stats or comparisons.

Executive Summary please

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Nice work. Love the time spent on it. I assume you are retired, have no friends, are only interested in AFL or are Ben Affleck in The Accountant.

Semi retired, no friends, but I am not Ben Affleck in The Accountant, and I have certain other interests. And your executive summary is bolded right at the start of the post, you must have missed that.

 

[Forensi Tiger]

Semi retired, no friends, but I am not Ben Affleck in The Accountant, and I have certain other interests.

Even more impressive.

 

[Spluff]

Agreed, he has not had the best picks while being the recruiting manager of a team in a dynasty.

In saying that I don't think he has performed well looking at the breakdown of his picks, although judging by the average results of AFL clubs and draft picks they might as well get the boot studder to pick.
It seems easy considering the amount of football these kids play against each other, but in reality it must be difficult considering the outcomes.

Balta, Bolton and Higgins, the best of the rest are AFL standard role players at best.

Bolton was Francis Jackson anyway...

 

[Lsta062]

Picks in the first 3 rounds of the NAB AFL Draft spent on defenders who are not key defenders during Clarke's period in charge of recruiting(from 21 picks overall):

2016 Nil
2017 Nil
2018 Nil
2019 Nil
2020 Nil
2021 17 Brown
2022 49 Smith
2023 Nil

Who are all the half back flankers he wasted picks on?


Picks in first 3 rounds broken down by player type:

Key Forward 43 Fawcett
Key Defender 25 Balta, 54 Nyuon, 9 Gibcus,
Ruck 40 Ryan,
Ruck Forward 20 Coleman-Jones
Inside Mid 20 Collier-Dawkins, 21 Dow, 44 Martyn, 40 McAuliffe
Wing 34 Naish, 43 Ross, 46 Ralphsmith, 29 Banks,
Medium Forward 53 Graham, 17 Higgins, 43 Cumberland, 52 Rioli Jnr, 30 Clarke, 55 Green
Medium Defender 17 Brown, 49 Smith
Mid-Forward 29 Bolton, 28 Sonsie

Key Forward 43 Fawcett
Key Defender 25 Balta, 54 Nyuon, 9 Gibcus,
Ruck 40 Ryan,
Ruck Forward 20 Coleman-Jones
Inside Mid 20 Collier-Dawkins, 21 Dow, 44 Martyn, 40 McAuliffe
Wing 34 Naish, 43 Ross, 46 Ralphsmith, 29 Banks,
Medium Forward 53 Graham, 17 Higgins, 43 Cumberland, 52 Rioli Jnr, 30 Clarke, 55 Green
Medium Defender 17 Brown, 49 Smith
Mid-Forward 29 Bolton, 28 Sonsie

Blue = excellent - 2
Green = Acceptable/good - 3
Amber/Orange = unproven/OK - 12
Red = Bomb - 7

I expect McAuliffe and Gibcus (if no longer injury-plagued) to go to the green. But how many of the amber ones will end up in the red category? Doesn’t really look promising right now.

All this shows is that Matt Clarke was a middling recruiter at best tbh. He didn’t take our KPF stock seriously and completely bombed when tasked with addressing our midfield shortages. That alone is enough to move him on.

Look at GWS’ drafting history in the first three rounds for comparison (round - player)

Academy picks = (A). I will still highlight them, but you can ignore them.

2016
1 - Tim Taranto
1 - Will Setterfield (A)
1 - Harry Perryman (A)
1 - Isaac Cumming (A)

2017
1 - Aiden Bonar
2 - Brent Daniels
2 - Sam Taylor

2018
1 - Jye Caldwell
1 - Jackson Hately
1 - Xavier O’Halloran
2 - Bobby Hill
2 - Kieren Briggs (A)

2019
1 - Lachlan Ash
1 - Tom Green (A)
3 - Jake Riccardi

2020
1 - Tanner Bruhn
1 - Conor Stone
1 - Ryan Angwin

2021
1 - Finn Callaghan
1 - Leek Aleer
3 - Josh Fahey? I don’t really know him

2022
1 - Aaron Cadman
1 - Harry Rowston (A)
1 - Darcy Jones
2 - Max Gruzewski
2 - Toby McMullin

2023
1 - Phoenix Gothard
1 - James Leake
2 - Joseph Fonti

And I’m probably marking some of these
picks harshly (e.g., Tanner Bruhn). Matt Clarke’s drafting does not compare (even outside of the academy picks). Not to mention, GWS also got some good players outside of the first three rounds like Peatling and Idun. But I’m not including them here.

Yes, I know that not many teams in the league compare to GWS when it comes to drafting, and yes, I know that GWS had a lot of high-end picks + academy picks, but they don’t often waste their high-end picks as you can see above. We’ve bombed more first-round picks with the limited amount we had than they did.

That is who we should be comparing ourselves to. Matt Clarke was definitely not good enough to get us drafting like this.

 

[SunshineBoy]

Nice work. Love the time spent on it. I assume you are retired, have no friends, are only interested in AFL or are Ben Affleck in The Accountant.

Nah he’s Jason Statham in the beekeeper

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Key Forward 43 Fawcett
Key Defender 25 Balta, 54 Nyuon, 9 Gibcus,
Ruck 40 Ryan,
Ruck Forward 20 Coleman-Jones
Inside Mid 20 Collier-Dawkins, 21 Dow, 44 Martyn, 40 McAuliffe
Wing 34 Naish, 43 Ross, 46 Ralphsmith, 29 Banks,
Medium Forward 53 Graham, 17 Higgins, 43 Cumberland, 52 Rioli Jnr, 30 Clarke, 55 Green
Medium Defender 17 Brown, 49 Smith
Mid-Forward 29 Bolton, 28 Sonsie

Blue = excellent - 2
Green = Acceptable/good - 3
Amber/Orange = unproven/OK - 12
Red = Bomb - 7

I expect McAuliffe and Gibcus (if no longer injury-plagued) to go to the green. But how many of the amber ones will end up in the red category? Doesn’t really look promising right now.

All this shows is that Matt Clarke was a middling recruiter at best tbh. He didn’t take our KPF stock seriously and completely bombed when tasked with addressing our midfield shortages. That alone is enough to move him on.

Look at GWS’ drafting history in the first three rounds for comparison (round - player)

Academy picks = (A). I will still highlight them, but you can ignore them.

2016
1 - Tim Taranto
1 - Will Setterfield (A)
1 - Harry Perryman (A)
1 - Isaac Cumming (A)

2017
1 - Aiden Bonar
2 - Brent Daniels
2 - Sam Taylor

2018
1 - Jye Caldwell
1 - Jackson Hately
1 - Xavier O’Halloran
2 - Bobby Hill
2 - Kieren Briggs (A)

2019
1 - Lachlan Ash
1 - Tom Green (A)
3 - Jake Riccardi

2020
1 - Tanner Bruhn
1 - Conor Stone
1 - Ryan Angwin

2021
1 - Finn Callaghan
1 - Leek Aleer
3 - Josh Fahey? I don’t really know him

2022
1 - Aaron Cadman
1 - Harry Rowston (A)
1 - Darcy Jones
2 - Max Gruzewski
2 - Toby McMullin

2023
1 - Phoenix Gothard
1 - James Leake
2 - Joseph Fonti

And I’m probably marking some of these
picks harshly (e.g., Tanner Bruhn). Matt Clarke’s drafting does not compare (even outside of the academy picks). Not to mention, GWS also got some good players outside of the first three rounds like Peatling and Idun. But I’m not including them here.

Yes, I know that not many teams in the league compare to GWS when it comes to drafting, and yes, I know that GWS had a lot of high-end picks + academy picks, but they don’t often waste their high-end picks as you can see above. We’ve bombed more first-round picks with the limited amount we had than they did.

That is who we should be comparing ourselves to. Matt Clarke was definitely not good enough to get us drafting like this.

Nice post.

My main first difference would be to say that Coleman-Jones is neither a failed pick for Richmond, nor a confirmed failure as an AFL player. The other observation is that placing a double flag, Norm Smith vote getting, 150 odd game player like Graham who is a fair chance to net us pick 22 in compensation 8 years later - from pick 53 as unproven/ok, rather than good is bordering on laughable. You have also given Setterfield and Gibcus the same colour for another example. That is also totally unfair when rating the role of the recruiter. Setterfield is a total failure of a top 5 pick for GWS, Gibcus and Graham have hugely higher value than Setterfield ever returned for GWS(or any of his other clubs.)

Hopefully early next week I will come back and compare GWS with the academies removed then spilt into picks 1-10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 50+ v Matthew Clarke at Richmond and we can see how they compare on a pick for pick basis. My sense is we are going to be comparing one team in Richmond, who had one single pick below 17 in 8 years of drafting, with GWS, who have taken over a dozen picks below 17 over the same 8 drafts. But we will see who strikes at a better rate in each part of the draft from the picks they had.

But thanks for the post, it creates a good basis for meaningful discussion, which I will come back to when I have more time during the week.

 

[Lsta062]

Nice post.

My main first difference would be to say that Coleman-Jones is neither a failed pick for Richmond, nor a confirmed failure as an AFL player. The other observation is that placing a double flag, Norm Smith vote getting, 150 odd game player like Graham who is a fair chance to net us pick 22 in compensation 8 years later - from pick 53 as unproven/ok, rather than good is bordering on laughable. You have also given Setterfield and Gibcus the same colour for another example. That is also totally unfair when rating the role of the recruiter. Setterfield is a total failure of a top 5 pick for GWS, Gibcus and Graham have hugely higher value than Setterfield ever returned for GWS(or any of his other clubs.)

Hopefully early next week I will come back and compare GWS with the academies removed then spilt into picks 1-10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 50+ v Matthew Clarke at Richmond and we can see how they compare on a pick for pick basis. My sense is we are going to be comparing one team in Richmond, who had one single pick below 17 in 8 years of drafting, with GWS, who have taken over a dozen picks below 17 over the same 8 drafts. But we will see who strikes at a better rate in each part of the draft from the picks they had.

But thanks for the post, it creates a good basis for meaningful discussion, which I will come back to when I have more time during the week.

For a pick that was later than 50, I agree that I was probably a bit too harsh on Graham. He is probably green. And yes, Setterfield is also probably red if you consider where GWS took Setterfield, so I’m happy to change his rating as well.

I will stick with CCJ as red though. He did nothing for us and was a hindrance so far in his time at North. I don’t think he’ll amount to much from here.

Yes, it would be good seeing a comparison beyond the first three rounds. Without looking, I think Clarke did OK after the first three rounds if I remember correctly. Shouldn’t be too different to GWS. My whole problem with Clarke was his performance in the earlier parts of the draft. I think we should’ve nailed more than we did.

 

[T4P]

Nice post.

My main first difference would be to say that Coleman-Jones is neither a failed pick for Richmond, nor a confirmed failure as an AFL player. The other observation is that placing a double flag, Norm Smith vote getting, 150 odd game player like Graham who is a fair chance to net us pick 22 in compensation 8 years later - from pick 53 as unproven/ok, rather than good is bordering on laughable. You have also given Setterfield and Gibcus the same colour for another example. That is also totally unfair when rating the role of the recruiter. Setterfield is a total failure of a top 5 pick for GWS, Gibcus and Graham have hugely higher value than Setterfield ever returned for GWS(or any of his other clubs.)

Hopefully early next week I will come back and compare GWS with the academies removed then spilt into picks 1-10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 50+ v Matthew Clarke at Richmond and we can see how they compare on a pick for pick basis. My sense is we are going to be comparing one team in Richmond, who had one single pick below 17 in 8 years of drafting, with GWS, who have taken over a dozen picks below 17 over the same 8 drafts. But we will see who strikes at a better rate in each part of the draft from the picks they had.

But thanks for the post, it creates a good basis for meaningful discussion, which I will come back to when I have more time during the week.

I'd go a step further and have Graham as blue. I would be surprised if he wasn't top 5% for a pick in the 50s. How many players in the 50s end up being a 200+ game player, let alone win two (basically three given he sacrificed his shoulder for the third) flags. I get that he's a whipping boy now but some objectivity is necessary here.

Similarly, I think the criticism is harsh on Clarke. First, it's a recruiting team - using 2016 as a boundary is somewhat of an arbitrary distinction. FJ led the team, then Clarke led the team. There was only title change, not real personnel change. The team has proven its success. It's also a positive indicator of FJ's success in building a dynasty-enabling recruiting team that we've had Thursfield and Clarke poached from us. We are now in new and vulnerable territory as the team is in transition.

The question is how improved and/or compromised the team's system and processes get through personnel changes. I suspect the club has been resting on its laurels and not sufficiently investing in recruiting (falling into historical traps). I would be spending more time questioning the club's investment in recruiting than Clarke's draft record. FJ can only be the team's linchpin for so long (we now have Toce leading the team but who else other than FJ could have facilitated handover?)

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Anyone who watched RCD for more than 5 minutes and thought 'top 20', I would be really concerned about.

otherwise, my criticism is the complete allergy towards spending decent draft capital on tall forwards, which IMO is the central reason why we are going to 'win' the wooden spoon this year.

you select KPFs and make elite KPDs from the failures, not the other way around.

Worst forward line at our club I have ever seen, currently, Lynch on the sidelines premanently of course.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Anyone who watched RCD for more than 5 minutes and thought 'top 20', I would be really concerned about.

otherwise, my criticism is the complete allergy towards spending decent draft capital on tall forwards, which IMO is the central reason why we are going to 'win' the wooden spoon this year.

you select KPFs and make elite KPDs from the failures, not the other way around.

Worst forward line at our club I have ever seen, currently, Lynch on the sidelines premanently of course.

That worst forward ever(true) required all of the following:

• Lynch misses almost the whole year injured.
• Martin stuffed his back, and had to be carried to 300 games.
• best pressure forward M Rioli misses 3/4 of the year after he was performing very well.
• replacement key forward Lefau comes in and was looking good and does an ACL after about 9 games
• some key defensive injuries meant Balta could never be given a proper run as a key forward
• best defensive running half forward Graham injured on and off misses half the games and needs to be dragged into the midfield for half the games he lays.
• whole starting midfield(Prestia, Hopper, Taranto) was missing for an extended period, severely weakening the midfield, which obviously makes it much tougher for the forward line to perform.
• 20 odd different players, most of them very inexperienced, have played in the forward line, so no stability or continuity whatsoever.

That has got **** all to do with recruiting, drafting Van Rooyen for instance is going to do absolutely nothing to save you from that array of problems.

Lynch Balta(2nd ruck) Lefau
Bolton/Martin Baker Rioli Jnr Graham

That is the preferred 7 man forward structure our recruiters presented the club with. Basically never took the field and on average about 2-3 of those players have been present in the forward line at the absolute most. So the really poor forward line function in 2024 is not in any way reflective of our recruiting.

 

[Pomsta]

I don't have anywhere near the time to look at this but it would be an interesting comparison to see the next 5 or so picks after our pick and see if there were any standout picks we may have had or if our pick was a lot better than the next 5. In a real deep dive it may be worth seeing the previous 5 picks as well to see the records of some of the other recruiters that other BF posters think are better. I wouldn't bother including any that we didn't have access to ie. F/S, NGA or Academy.

That should fill the rst of your spare time MR.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

That worst forward ever(true) required all of the following:

• Lynch misses almost the whole year injured.
• Martin stuffed his back, and had to be carried to 300 games.
• best pressure forward M Rioli misses 3/4 of the year after he was performing very well.
• replacement key forward Lefau comes in and was looking good and does an ACL after about 9 games
• some key defensive injuries meant Balta could never be given a proper run as a key forward
• best defensive running half forward Graham injured on and off misses half the games and needs to be dragged into the midfield for half the games he lays.
• whole starting midfield(Prestia, Hopper, Taranto) was missing for an extended period, severely weakening the midfield, which obviously makes it much tougher for the forward line to perform.
• 20 odd different players, most of them very inexperienced, have played in the forward line, so no stability or continuity whatsoever.

That has got **** all to do with recruiting, drafting Van Rooyen for instance is going to do absolutely nothing to save you from that array of problems.

Lynch Balta(2nd ruck) Lefau
Bolton/Martin Baker Rioli Jnr Graham

That is the preferred 7 man forward structure our recruiters presented the club with. Basically never took the field and o average about 2-3 of those players have been present in the forward line at the absolute most. So the really poor forward line function in 2024 is not in any way reflective of our recruiting.

Yes, Lynch is a massive issue.
Walking out AA/elite small forwards like Wombat and Butler was the other massive one.
Can't blame drafters for that. Higgins left us of course. Stengle-Butler-Higgins rotating around Lynch would have been formidable.

But trying to find your Lefau types is the heart of the problem, and your pick 77 Reece McKenzies etc. though that's going back further. Take it back to 2004 draft if you like. Alway the mid or HBF, never the KPF.

We are obsessed with diamond in the rough KPF, when it has never happened for us!

We paid for Jack Riewoldt, and it was transformational, just can't think of another time we spent real draft value on a KPF?

 

[TJTIGER]

That’s one big pile of chit!!