Rookie Draft- 5 Years Without Success

[Drummond]

2003:

Michael Bratton- 0 games
Aidan Parker- 0
Jason Porplyzia- 26*
Hayden Skipworth- 44

2004:

Rowan Andrews- 0
Brad Debrowski- 0
Aidan Parker- 0
Matthew Smith- 0
Tim Hazel- 0

2005:

Rowan Andrews- 0
Jonathon Griffin- 16*
John Hinge- 1*
Ryan Nye- 0

2006:

Adrian Bonaddio- 0
Sam Elliot- 0
Tom Redden- 0
Brad Sugars- 0

2007:

Rhys Archard- 0
Greg Gallman- 0*
Andrew McIntyre- 0*
James Turner- 0*

*= denotes current player

We had great success from the Rookie draft in 2002 but since then it’s pretty much been a disaster. While you don’t expect many rookie listed players to make it at AFL level, our lack of success should be looked into.

Over the past 5 years Jason Porplyzia’s 26 games is the biggest output from anyone drafted. Skipworth played 44 games but he wasn’t initially a rookie selection so he’s a different story.

In 2003 we drafted Porplyzia who was released but managed to work his way back onto the list with a few consistent years with West Adelaide. No one drafted in 2004 managed to play a single game, not one. We did well in 2005 with Griffin and Hinge both appearing to be solid enough prospects, but there’s an outside chance Hinge could be delisted.

The 2006 selections all proved to be flops, with none even regular players in the SANFL. Sugars and Elliot are now showing some signs, but all in all it was a terrible crop.

As for the latest group of selections, I have very little faith that any will develop into AFL players. Acrhard’s already gone, and after a promising start McIntyre looks to be in danger of being cut. Turner needs to locate and send a Macca’s store broke, and Gallman has potential but he should be looking to play more on the wing.

Our rookie drafting needs to be assessed because while it’s a hit and miss process, we shouldn’t be having to accept so many failures…

 

[Cap]

haven't they taken alot of riksy players like bonnadio and mature age guys like Archard which maybe skews it a bit ?


but i agree Drum, i wait with baited breath (had garlic tonight for tea so that helps) for the trade week/delisted period and draft. We need to see a signifcant change to tatics and hopefully with fantasia out of the picture hopefully we can get some runs on the boards.

 

[Dogga79]

I think Mcintyre will still be upgraded. He had a pretty nasty injury and I'm sure it put a dent in his 2007 season. I dont think we can appreciate how much a long term injury effect's a players fitness and confidence. He has shown that he has the ability. Why not upgrade him to the list permanantly? We will have space on the list. With some recovery time and a pre season it could work.

Gallman should be retained on the rookie list for another year. I see potential,but his time is not now.

 

[Drummond]

haven't they taken alot of riksy players like bonnadio and mature age guys like Archard which maybe skews it a bit ?

Just wondering, why are we rookie listing mature aged guys? Debrowski was 22 when we drafted him, as was Hazel, and Archard was 24. To me there’s no point using a rookie selection on mature aged guys, better served using them on youngsters with more upside. Surely there’s enough talent on offer to even have one make it?

For comparisons sake, Port had a 50% success rate in 2006 due to Bentley and Logan, and look set to do the same from their 2007 group (Batsanis, Grose). And yet we could quite possibly have no one upgraded from the past two years which is really quite pathetic.

 

[Drummond]

I think Mcintyre will still be upgraded. He had a pretty nasty injury and I'm sure it put a dent in his 2007 season. I dont think we can appreciate how much a long term injury effect's a players fitness and confidence. He has shown that he has the ability. Why not upgrade him to the list permanantly? We will have space on the list. With some recovery time and a pre season it could work.

Gallman should be retained on the rookie list for another year. I see potential,but his time is not now.

So you’re upgrading him for the sake of it? There’s no point upgrading him simply because we have space on the list!

His form since returning from injury, which was about 3 months ago now, has been very, very disappointing. He has been well beaten by a number of opponents, including last week when 2005 draftee who was subsequently delisted Alan Obst well and truly beat him. And then there’s his intensity with is almost as bad as Jericho. I’m not saying he doesn’t put in, but he just seems to cruise out there without ever really looking desperate. He’s also very susceptible when the ball hits the deck and his disposal is poor. I don’t see a lot to like, but I guess we’ll see how they rate him in the next month or so.

 

[WheresGroomgone]

Good thread Drummond, what is the go? over 20 something players and very little return, you would think in such a big business with recruiters paid big dollars that their return rate would be a great deal higher, if not you would question their worth, definately an area our club needs to get better at.

 

[FAITH]

I think if you look at our recruiting v the power's you will find that we have struggled big time.

we must determine why port are so good at identifying and developing players.

Also, do you guys seriously think that if mark williams was coach of the crows he would pursue keeping blokes like: Perrie, McGregor, Jericho, Hinge, Meseen etc.

What the crows must do is get rid of aveage players on our list and try to gain as many top 40 picks for the national draft and develop.

Also why do we waste so many spots on our list for ruckman? my opinion is that we should on have 2 experienced and 1 developing ruckman. why did we last yr have 3 experienced + Maric, Griff, Mess and possibly Tippet and Sellar this yr?

 

[Crow-mo]

Also, do you guys seriously think that if mark williams was coach of the crows he would pursue keeping blokes like: Perrie, McGregor, Jericho, Hinge, Meseen etc.

Toby Thurstans. discuss.

 

[Cap]

Just wondering, why are we rookie listing mature aged guys? Debrowski was 22 when we drafted him, as was Hazel, and Archard was 24. To me there’s no point using a rookie selection on mature aged guys, better served using them on youngsters with more upside. Surely there’s enough talent on offer to even have one make it?

For comparisons sake, Port had a 50% success rate in 2006 due to Bentley and Logan, and look set to do the same from their 2007 group (Batsanis, Grose). And yet we could quite possibly have no one upgraded from the past two years which is really quite pathetic.

Don't worry Drummond - i agree with you

 

[Mismatched]

I think if you look at our recruiting v the power's you will find that we have struggled big time.

we must determine why port are so good at identifying and developing players.

Also, do you guys seriously think that if mark williams was coach of the crows he would pursue keeping blokes like: Perrie, McGregor, Jericho, Hinge, Meseen etc.

What the crows must do is get rid of aveage players on our list and try to gain as many top 40 picks for the national draft and develop.

Also why do we waste so many spots on our list for ruckman? my opinion is that we should on have 2 experienced and 1 developing ruckman. why did we last yr have 3 experienced + Maric, Griff, Mess and possibly Tippet and Sellar this yr?

(btw 06 we had the 3 experienced plus 3 inexperienced, 1 experienced happened to be useless due to a knee recon. 07 we had 2 experienced + 3 inexperienced, again with 1 experienced out with a knee recon, + 2 blokes drafted as potential gun forwards who also happened to be listed as ruckman)

For a start at the beginning of this year all we had was Hudson and Griffen, Tippet and Sellar being drafted as key posy forwards(tippet being the only one remotely possible of playing as a ruckman). If one of Hudson and Griffen had gone down with injury we would have had Perrie or Bock as our back up ruckman. back in 03 or 04, all we had was Clarke, Biglands and Marsh, 2 of them went down, all we were left with was Biglands, 2 ruckman are pretty much a must in your top 22. Hence why in the next 2 years we drafted a few ruckman, eg. Hudson, Meesen, Maric and Griffen etc.

2 and 1 developing is not enough as ruckman are easily one of the most prone to injury, and when they injure themselves, they do it well, they don't pull a hamstring and spend 2 weeks on the sidelines, they do a knee and spend 12 months there. You probably want atleast 3 match ready ruckman + 1 or 2 devoping inc. rookie listed, cause when they go down, they are the hardest to replace and if you have too many good ones, they become worth their weight in gold come trade week.

Also, okay our recruiting record for our first rounders is dismal, beyond that it is pretty good, not great, but we shouldn't complain, and since 97 how many times have me missed the 8? 3! 3 out of 11, and in those three, we have not finished lower than 13th and of the 8 when we have made the finals, 5 have been prelims. Gee, really bad recruiting on our part forget that richmond have only made the finals twice in the past 20+ years, I'm sure our record is better than port adelaide, NC has a 70% win loss ratio, whilst our finals record hasn't been the best, clearly we arn't struggling to compete, of the top 4 teams we lost too geelong once by 7 points I think and once by about 3 goals and won 1 of 2 with collingwood, we beat port twice and flogged kangaroos. We also beat sydney and hawthorn who made the 8. Port have been very liberal in their dishing out of games, the crows pride themselves too much on good performance, whilst Port had a very good year this year with recruiting, and got one right with danyle pearce, we have been similar, the only thing I question is our ability to create an absolute star from potential, we get good players, but are yet to really produce a star recently, port do seem to be able to do this.

And btw, there is a reason why players reach the rookie draft, they have been overlooked by all 16 clubs in the national and preseason drafts, so they obviously have their downsides, we did really well for a little while out of the likes of Rutten, Bock, Mattner, Doughty and Skipworth its tough and i'm sure many clubs would like the success we've had but who gives a rats about the rookie draft, its too hit and miss to get worried about.

 

[GlaCial]

2003:

Michael Bratton- 0 games
Aidan Parker- 0
Jason Porplyzia- 26*
Hayden Skipworth- 44

2004:

Rowan Andrews- 0
Brad Debrowski- 0
Aidan Parker- 0
Matthew Smith- 0
Tim Hazel- 0

2005:

Rowan Andrews- 0
Jonathon Griffin- 16*
John Hinge- 1*
Ryan Nye- 0

2006:

Adrian Bonaddio- 0
Sam Elliot- 0
Tom Redden- 0
Brad Sugars- 0

2007:

Rhys Archard- 0
Greg Gallman- 0*
Andrew McIntyre- 0*
James Turner- 0*

*= denotes current player

2000
Michael Doughty- 119*
Josh Coulter- 0
Chris Roberston- 0
Jon Yerbury- 0

2001
Kane McLean- 0
Justin Cicolella- 0
Matthew Golding- 0
James Gallagher- 38

2002
Paul Thomas- 0
Nathan Bock- 63*
Ben Rutten- 80*
Martin Mattner- 98*

If any of the class of 2007 play significant games you'd wonder if the trend was 1 year on 1 year off.

If you compare the number of players still active from the National (20/34, 59%) to the Rookie draft (11/31, 35%), then I'd say we have done very well with the Rookie draft, given that Rookies are higher risk.

 

[Dodgy Barry]

Gee, that is something that you need to iron out quick smart, and I'm not here to gloat.

Off the top of my head, these are the rookie success stories at WCE:

Cox
Fletcher
Lynch
B.Jones
Armstrong
Priddis
Nicoski (I think)

 

[GlaCial]

Gee, that is something that you need to iron out quick smart, and I'm not here to gloat.

Off the top of my head, these are the rookie success stories at WCE:

Cox
Fletcher
Lynch
B.Jones
Armstrong
Priddis
Nicoski (I think)

Nicoski, 2003, 25 games
Jamyie Graham 2004, 31
Aaron Edawards, 2003 then 2005, 4, then traded to Kangas for 18

WCE have out performed Adelaide at the Rookie draft with 19 of 30 (63%) on the still active list. But they have also out performed us at the National draft with 26/31 on the still active list.

So I think we are well behind WCE on many fronts.

BTW, was Fantasia nudged, pushed or did he jump?

 

[dirtydog444]

If the crows want a higher success rate with their rookies I think they had better revise the way they treat them!
Crows are the only AFL club to exclude their rookies from main trainings once the pre-season is over.
They only give them 1 year to settle in and prove themselves (other clubs 2 years).
These 18 year old kids are torn between their SANFL commitments and Crows demands. This only causes them to underperform and leads to stressed out, confused lads trying to impress in a short period of time or their out!
Not only have these boys just left school but may have moved away from home with no family support for the first time in their lives.
Wake up crows and follow the proven example set by the other, more successfull clubs. Stop blaming the rookies and make a few changes.

 

[GlaCial]

I don't think anyone is blaming the Rookies. I think we are blaming the recruiting department for not identifying talent, the coaches for not developing the players, and the club period.

 

[Mismatched]

Geez, if Rookies are our great hope there is something wrong, yes often you get one right and it is great, but you are really getting something for very little so nothing is lost at the end of the day.

 

[dirtydog444]

Porps was let go as a rookie as they didn't think he had the talent or what it took! once he got away, matured and got his head around things they were quick to grab him again. Now say he'll be a gun, long term player for the club.

Good for him! but its not thanks to the crows! I feel this story will be repeated in the future but with those passed up by the crows heading elsewhere

How can the Crows really see the talent under their nose if they are not watching these kids regularly (ie at training and for a decent period of time).

 

[NikkiNoo]

Porps was let go as a rookie as they didn't think he had the talent or what it took! once he got away, matured and got his head around things they were quick to grab him again. Now say he'll be a gun, long term player for the club.

Good for him! but its not thanks to the crows! I feel this story will be repeated in the future but with those passed up by the crows heading elsewhere

How can the Crows really see the talent under their nose if they are not watching these kids regularly (ie at training and for a decent period of time).

Sorry dirtydog but they did think porps had the talent just that he was too slow / did not have the aerobic capacity - that is what he went away and worked on.

From your comments I think you have some personal issues with the crows.

I can understand that the crows sending the rookies to their sanfl clubs for most of the regular season. Isn't it easier for their development to continually be in the environment where they will be playing each and every week? Do Freo and West Coast treat their rookies the same? You can't compare what happens with victorian based teams as they have one team in the AFL aligned to them, often with strong links to the afl team.

It is different to draftees in that they are on the crows list and are a crows player, not an sanfl player. The rookie system is just a security blanket / project player system for afl clubs, if they can afford them. It is an opportunity for players that don't quite have what it takes to work on things and spend time around an afl club. If it doesn't work, no skin off the crows nose.

 

[GlaCial]

If it doesn't work, no skin off the crows nose.

Totally disagree with you on that comment. If it doesn't work for us, and it is working for another club then that club has an advantage over us.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Totally disagree with you on that comment. If it doesn't work for us, and it is working for another club then that club has an advantage over us.

Then list all clubs rookie list for the same period to compare correctly. We actually have had some pretty good success compared to most other clubs. It's why it was highlighted in the media earlier in the year, ours and west coasts success.

 

[Drummond]

If it doesn't work, no skin off the crows nose.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Why then doesn’t the AFC employ me, because even if I identify and recommend a youngster who turns out to be a flop, no big deal!

Our talent scouts are paid the big bucks to recognise talent and get them into our club. To expect that even half of the players drafted will make it at the top level is naïve, but in the last 5 years we’ve had a mere 3 out of 21 players play an AFL game. Whatever way you want to look at it, that’s not acceptable.

 

[Mismatched]

What are other clubs records over this time?

 

[GlaCial]

I totally agree with Drum on this.

Why are we happy to accept that if other clubs are not doing well at this then it's OK for us to not do well? Is it wrong that we should aspire to be better than WCE or any other club for that matter. If we accept mediocrity then we will be mediocre.

It's up to the recruiters and the coaches to identify talent that can play, and then the coaches to prepare them to play. Some of our past Rookies have disappeared into football obscurity.

 

[swanfan]

What a ridiculous thing to say. Why then doesn’t the AFC employ me, because even if I identify and recommend a youngster who turns out to be a flop, no big deal!

Our talent scouts are paid the big bucks to recognise talent and get them into our club. To expect that even half of the players drafted will make it at the top level is naïve, but in the last 5 years we’ve had a mere 3 out of 21 players play an AFL game. Whatever way you want to look at it, that’s not acceptable.

Totally agree Drum. We are not selecting people to run the lucky dip stall at the school fete. The stats that show our past 5 years have been woeful. Its another area we need to look at significantly improving.

 

[GlaCial]

Didn't we nudge/dump Fantasia because the board weren't happy with his performance?