By MrB
July 27th 2008 @ 2:44am
Loading ...The AFL draft: does first pick even matter?
In recent years there has been a lot of talk of tanking for better draft picks. This year it seems that the number one pick will go to either Melbourne, West Coast or Fremantle. But how often do clubs end up picking the best player from that draft with the number one pick?
It’s to early to decide whether Bryce Gibbs and Mat Kruezer will end up being the best player from the last draft, so think back to the 2005 draft.
Marc Murphy was the the first player selected in that draft, but other players picked up early that year included Dale Thomas, Scott Pendlebury and Paddy Ryder. Then if you look even further down the list in that draft, a player like Robert Warnock was taken with pick 42, and premiership player Mathew Stokes was taken with pick 61.
So if you ask yourself, did Carlton pick the best player in that draft? The answer is probably no.
I’d much prefer a Dale Thomas or a Scott Pendlebury in my side than Marc Murphy.
Now look back to the 2004 draft.
Lance Franklin was taken with the fifth pick, while Deledio, Roughead, Griffen and Tambling were taken ahead of him.
Richmond made a monumental mistake taking Tambling ahead of Franklin. Deledio, Roughead and Griffen have all developed into good players, but I doubt any of them will ever be as good as Buddy.
All-Australian defender Mat Egan was taken with pick 62.
An absolute bargain.
So, over the past few years you’ll find the clubs at the top of the ladder are more than often the best drafting clubs and are good at spotting the best young talent, even if they don’t have the best picks.
Geelong: Gary Ablett (pick 40), Paul Chapman (31), Steve Johnson (24) and Mathew Scarlett (45).
Western Bulldogs: Daniel Cross (pick 56), Daniel Giansiracusa (32) and Lindsay Gilbee (43).
Hawthorn: Chance Bateman (pick 48), Sam Mitchell (36) and Brad Sewell was elevated off the rookie list.
Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(6)
matta said | July 27th 2008 @ 9:19am | Report comment
not at all…was only talking about this the other day that trying to pick kids at 17,18 or 19 as the next champs is only ever going to be right sometimes.
Edward Bowman said | July 27th 2008 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Marc Murphy is easily the best player in his draft. Dale Thomas is very overated due to him kicking flashy goals every now and then.
Yet i no what you mean the teams at the current top of the ladder have managed to pick up some bargains.
The number 1 pick is definatly the most valuable pick in the draft.
cosmos forever said | July 27th 2008 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
I think Carlton have proven that it is less important to tank one season for a gamble of the first draft pick, than it is to tank for a series of seasons and pick up all of the best young talent!!!!!
Look at them now and it is the access they have had to the talent over successive drafts that has given their entire roster a lift. Meanwhile teams like my beloved Roos struggle along, come in 8-10th year after year and never get that chance because they try…
sheek said | July 27th 2008 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
Matta,
I asked this question some weeks back, that is, just how effective are the 1st choice draft picks historically? I don’t recall anyone providing an answer.
The best kid in any sport at age 17 may not be the best by age 20, & so on. It is often a lottery. Then there’s the profiling question – what if a champion potential doesn’t feel comfortable at the club he’s drafted to? There’s the human factor often overlooked.
There is currently an ‘in your face’ example with Wallaby scrumhalf Luke Burgess. At 24, they guy is no spring chicken. After 3 seasons with the Brumbies, they released in favour of a potentially better player in Josh Holmes, telling Burgess they couldn’t see him improving significantly.
Burgess is then picked up by the Waratahs & unexpectedly blossoms, ending up in the national team, while Holmes flounders at the Brumbies. You can’t blame the Brumbies, that’s just the way it is sometimes.
Holmes is still an awesome talent, but the message is, when it comes to human nature, we’re dealing with an inexact science. Therefore the time & money AFL clubs spend attempting to secure the best talent coming through is overrated.
Money would be better spent looking for kids who fit the club’s profile at that time, & desperately want to play for that particular club. IMHO.
matta said | July 28th 2008 @ 8:28pm | Report comment
yep.. here is a question..
Does any other, fully professional football code or physical game play so many blokes under the age of 21? Union and League do it a bit but AFL seem to do it a lot more….again, I could be wrong.
Michael C said | July 29th 2008 @ 7:08am | Report comment
Sheek -
I’m working on the ‘answer’
the simplest ‘high level’ answer though is that recent number 1,2,3 seems far less of a ’stab in the dark’ as in the early days of the draft when the Richard Loundners and Anthony Baniks were around (all respect to those 2 players for the abilities they DID have).
In recent times, the top 3 players have all been ‘hits’, rather than ‘misses’, with perhaps the injury riddled Scott Gumbleton the exception, but, touch wood for him that he SHOULD come good.
Down the list, the question I guess is – do all the selections get the same priority of opportunity? Are clubs more focussed on giving the high picks priority access to match experience etc – - or, are these higher picks just that much readier to step straight in.
The success of some rookie players, has illustrated that those with a tenuous lifeline who ARE able to step up, do the hard work, and make the most of what would definitively be their LAST chance – - – well, that’s a pretty rich little gold mine too. And – - perhaps the domain more so of those players who DO need to be given a couple extra years past the age of 17-18.
In recent years the top 5 picks
2004:
1 Brett Deledio, 2 Jarryd Roughead, 3 Ryan Griffen, 4 Richard Tambling, 5 Lance Franklin
2005:
1 Marc Murphy, 2 Dale Thomas, 3, Xavier Ellis, 4 Josh Kennedy, 5 Scott Pendlebury
2006:
1 Bryce Gibbs, 2 Scott Gumbleton, 3 Lachlan Hansen, 4 Matt Leuenberger, 5 Travis Boak
2007:
1 Matt Kreuzer, 2 Trent Cotchin, 3 Chris Masten, 4 Cale Morton, 5 Jarrad Grant
the common thread here being that really only injury has thwarted players above from making an immediate impact, in the main, even in their first year – - especially the midfielder types who often get to slot onto a back flank or forward pocket whilst building up their ‘tank’ (as Gary Ablett Jnr did).
A player like Lachie Hansen was a bit skinny last year, but, over the last 6 weeks has really started to show that he will be a class key position player for North.
When you step away from the top 5 picks, even staying within round 1 picks, there are gems, but, less obviously -
2004 – 6 Tom Williams, 7 Jordan Lewis, 9 Jordan Russell, 13 Matthew Bate, 14 Angus Monfries, then to 17 Andrew McQualter (at x-roads, perhaps now a run with tagger) and 18 Cameron Wood.
2005 – 7 Paddy Ryder, 11 Shaun Higgins, 12 Nathan Jones, 14 Grant Birchall, 16 Richard Douglas, then at 17 Darren Pfeiffer (traded by Adel to Carl and a fringe player there) and 18 Max Bailey (injury riddled big man)
2006 – 7 Joel Selwood, 10 Nathan Brown, 11 Andrejs Everitt, 13 Jack Riewoldt, 18 Leroy Jetta
2007 – 7 Rhys Palmer, 12 Cyril Rioli, 13 Brad Ebert, 17 Harry Taylor
So – - the value probably sits within the top 5 to top 7 where there is almost a guarrantee of quality – - with existing ’screening’ & profiling programs – - -and, that’s a good thing, it shows an efficiency of the talent pathway. Far better than just throwing 100,000 soccer juniors at a wall and seeing who sticks.