Charlie Cameron --> CC --> Doritos.
Believe it or not, I copped the same nickname for years with my initials being CC too.
-
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Toast Reasons I have nominated Charlie Cameron as the best thing to happen to the crows last year include.
- Thread starter thed
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Charlie Cameron --> CC --> Doritos.
Believe it or not, I copped the same nickname for years with my initials being CC too.
His initials being CC, maybe?
Deaneus!
We Await Silent Tristero's Empire
His initials are CC, like the brand of corn chips, therefore -> Doritos
Deaneus!
We Await Silent Tristero's Empire
Haha unfortunately I can't blame my issues on a nickname.
I fundamentally disagree in every way imaginable that Gunston leaving us had anything whatsoever to do with his "character"
And of course their answers would be 100% indicative of their true feelings and not interview rehearsed patter
There are deep seated questions you can ask to get the correct responses, not just the "rehearsed" ones. You need to know what to ask though and know what you are looking for in an answer
I slightly disagree about Gunston. I think his character had a small part to play, but maybe only 10%. The rest is on us
Vooligan
Norm Smith Medallist
Wow... In that case, call me Hugh Jackman. He's a human, I'm a human.
A large part of being a recruiter is being able to calculate risk. This is why they do such extensive research on potential draftee's and conduct interviews etc.
I'm not suggesting we lump all of the blame on Rendell but we certainly shouldn't be giving him god-status either. Truth falls somewhere in the middle.
The kids are what, 16/17? I hope their football talks more than their interview skills at that point.
I fundamentally disagree in every way imaginable that Gunston leaving us had anything whatsoever to do with his "character"
And of course their answers would be 100% indicative of their true feelings and not interview rehearsed patter
I don't fully disagree with it - I'll take a bit each way. I believe, quite strongly, that had we had a reserves side up and running and/or he'd spent more time in the 1's he was a better chance of staying. Far better. I don't agree who he is had little to do with it though - that's still a massive factor. Definitely a combination of his attitude/desires AND how we treated him. Can't isolate either of them from the equation IMO.
- Jul 25, 2010
- 32,674
- 18,767
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Golden State Warriors NBA Champions
The kids football skills gets them noticed and invited to the camp there answers gets them respect before getting drafted.
The interviews are more of an opportunity to gauge what their mentality towards AFL life is. Super important part of ranking them, though obviously raw footy skills are more important.
Well, let's have a look, shall we? I'll look at the drafts from 2000-2005. Any earlier than that and it's a former era with much less professionalism, and any later than that and it's too difficult to forecast because there are a lot of players on, say, 60 games who might or might not make it to the arbitrary "success" total of 100 games.
Over those six drafts, there are 108 first round selections, of which 65 have either made 100 games, or will very soon (ie Mitch Clark on 97 games). Of the 43 that didn't, four are some realistic chance of getting there (ie Xavier Ellis on 86 games at a new club), the rest have either retired or aren't close. Even if we give those four the benefit of the doubt, bringing our total up to 69, that's a 63.9% success rate. Less than 2 in 3.
Worth noting that 42 of those of those 69 players were top ten draft picks. That means there was a 70% success rate in the top 10, and only a 56.25% success rate elsewhere in the first round.
Moving to the second round, there were 93 selections over those six years, where only of which only 28 players have gone on to play 100 games. Two are still up in the air (Dylan Addison on 88 and Danny Stanley on 58), but let's count them. That's 30 from 93, a success rate of 32% - less than 1 in 3.
So either your expectations are much too high, or the recruiters of only a decade ago were drastically underperforming. I'd love to see how things have improved from 2006 onwards, but I'm not sure what a "good" measure of success should be. If it were the case that it hadn't changed - that a first round selection is roughly a 2/3 chance of playing 100 games, and a second round selection is roughly a 1/3 chance of playing 100 games - it would make some player -> pick trades look a lot less wise in hindsight.
Just for interest, the Crows had 2 first round successes from 6 selections in this period (Reilly and Douglas), and 2 second round successes from four selections (Van Berlo and Vince).
There are only limited number of spots in each side.
They cannot all get 100 games no matter how good the recruiters are.
If one player gets 100 games another will be forced to miss out.
The exception of course is if a squad stays settled and clubs choose not to take draft picks.
Its also very difficult to split recruiting skills from a club's developmental coaching abilities.
A failure at one club could mean success at another (just ask Paul Roos) or if they are unlucky, the scrap heap.
There is a very fine line between success and failure ... Truck almost had no career for example. Bock another.
But your efforts in putting real numbers (rather than guessed) to this are a welcome change.
Thanks for that Stab, I had a gut feeling the expectations laid out by Vader were a bit high (unlike you Vades not to have the stats to backup your point) - but must admit that's probably evne lower than i was going to guess.
To be fair, I did go back and revise those figures down in a subsequent post.
The final result, which both cmndstab & my research agree with is that roughly 60-70% of 1st round selections and 20-30% of 2nd round selections should go on to play 100+ games. The figures for players taken in the top-10 are slightly higher and the top-5 are higher again (close to the 90% I originally claimed for the entire round).
I'm not sure when Fantasia took over as recruitment manager. Rendell took over in 2007.
Our record from 2000-2006 is as follows:
1st round: Angwin (fail), Reilly (pass), Watts (fail), Meesen (fail), Douglas (pass), Pfeiffer (fail), Sellar (fail)
2nd round: Kruger (fail), Van Berlo (pass), Gibson (fail), Vince (pass), Tippett (pass)
So, during this period our 1st round hit rate was 2 from 7 = 29%, which is pathetic considering that this is the deepest part of the draft pool. Our record in the 2nd round was an above average 3 from 5 = 60%.
Fantasia's consistent failure (assisted by Ayres) to draft 100+ game players in the first round is one of the primary reasons why we haven't won a flag since 1998.
So Rendell's 100% strike rate with first rounders, none of which were in single figures, was a pretty good showing then?
It's a small sample size, but yes, it was a pretty good showing. Hard to make too much of it either way, given the limited sample size though.
He certainly looks like a genius when compared with the ignoramus that preceded him.
'Should play' on each player is not how I would consider it. 'Have played' obviously accurate, I would more focus on 'should have' a better than 66% hit rate of the selected players in the first round playing at leat 100 games. Need to consider the risk/reward trade offs that recruiters can and should take from time to time. I also believe the point sanders made about the 'quality' of those 100 game players is a huge factor. You'd almost take a 50% hit rate to make 100 games if the guys that do make it are elite. (i.e. you'd possibly take 1 dangerfield + 1 failure, over reilly & douglas. Filling the gaps through trades, lower round selections and rookies etc.
100 games was chosen because it's easily quantifiable and can be verified from the records. "Quality" is far more subjective and subject to personal opinion. You don't play 100+ games without being a very, very good footballer.
If you want to talk about elite players, then we failed to draft a single one during the whole of Fantasia's time in charge. Rutten & Bock get honourable mentions, as players to gain AA selection, but neither are the best of their generation.
Dangerfield is probably the only truly elite player drafted by Rendell. Tex may get there, but he's certainly not there yet. Sloane gets an honourable mention. Brad Crouch will be elite, but wasn't recruited through the draft.
Is one elite player in 5 years enough? It's better than his predecessor achieved, but is it sufficient to justify the way Rendell is deified by some on this board?
If you want to talk about elite players, then we failed to draft a single one during the whole of Fantasia's time in charge. Rutten & Bock get honourable mentions, as players to gain AA selection, but neither are the best of their generation.
Dangerfield is probably the only truly elite player drafted by Rendell. Tex may get there, but he's certainly not there yet. Sloane gets an honourable mention. Brad Crouch will be elite, but wasn't recruited through the draft.
Is one elite player in 5 years enough? It's better than his predecessor achieved, but is it sufficient to justify the way Rendell is deified by some on this board?
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 85,141
- 89,819
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
If you & have a look at the redone drafts with hindsight - on the draft & trading board, most of the times Adelaide's players drafted would have been taken much higher than what we got them for in Rendell's tenure at the Crows.
For me, this suggest he has done well (much better than average) overall compared to other clubs, with the picks at his disposal.
It would explain why one of the power clubs snapped him up when we let him go as he was arguably one of the most important assets at AFC.
BTW, way too early to say we have only 1 elite player in this time as would not be writing off Tex, Sloane, Smith & Crouch. The talent on our list is far better than 5 years ago.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 79,579
- 161,268
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #98
Can't we ring all our potential draftees pretending to be from a big Vic club and say Look, I hear the Crows have been sniffing around. You might not be available at our pick this year but we'd loooove to get you home when your first contract is up. You be keen?
I haven't written anyone off. I did say that Tex wasn't there yet, but may get there eventually. I don't think that Sloane or Smith will ever make it to the truly elite level, but that's not to say that they won't be very, very, very good players for us. Crouch will be elite, but wasn't taken in the draft, so he's not really eligible for consideration as part of this discussion (which is about Rendell & Fantasia's performances in the draft).
Tex was actually a Fantasia find, being part of the NSW scholarship program. He was eligible for the draft in Rendell's first year, but Fantasia signed him up to the program a couple of years earlier.
Similar threads
