Not all AFL picks are created equal

Why aren't you sooking about Hiscox as well, he's from the academy and we got priority access to him. Oh yeah, you've never heard his name until just now. Funny that...

Sooking Dougie.

Walter, you would have been following Carlton when a first cousin of mine played over 100 games for Carlton. I don't know where Carlton fell down in their recruiting in the early 2000s, but I am sure the loss of draft picks was significant -- the AFL handed out those punishments without having much idea of what the likely long term consequences would be. I think the belief is that there were problems with Carlton's management/board at that time as well. Perhaps the club's impatience for success also counted against them. With regard to bottom aged players, don't forget that Weitering is also in this category. From the point of view of such a player it would be better if they were drafted a year later, although in Weitering's case it wouldn't have mattered as he is so talented that he has been able to successfully fill a less demanding role in 2016 and further develop himself. Taking Jack Silvagni as an example, from Carlton's point of view it would have been better for him to have been taken in 2015 with a draft pick in the 50s rather than as an early to mid second round draft pick in 2016. I believe Carlton are managing him well and we won't see much of him in the AFL this season. Where is the value in the draft? The recent fashion has been in drafting big key position players and I think that has been a mistake as it is so hard to evaluate such players at 18, I thought Carlton drafted Harry McKay at a much earlier stage in the draft than was justified -- it will take a couple of years to find out who is right on that one. It would be interesting to go over the "All Australian" players over the last 10 years and see the drafting history of the different categories of players. I believe the draft age should be increased to 20, increase the minimum draft age by 2 months every year for the next 12 years. Thank you for your polite interest.

Aransan, I thank you for your considered and informative reply. As a Carlton adherent since 1953 (although I have for many years resided afar), I’ve been following their drafting since 2002, and it has been littered with failure. Why? Is it because of a lack of acuity on the part of their recruiters, or a lack of development skills on the part of their coaching / development staff? And it’s not just Carlton, of course. At every new draft we are regaled with the limitless potential of these fabulous draftees, all being the next coming of Wayne Carey. And when, a couple of years later, they inevitably depart… well, they were too slow, didn’t have the agility/strength/endurance, couldn’t impose themselves, etc. Why wasn’t this apparent to our scouting / recruiting team in the first place? And why wasn’t this highly-touted young player developed by the development team whose job it should be to do exactly that? Well, partly because anything can happen between the ages of 17 and 21. In this respect, the Americans (college football, college basketball, draft at 21) have it right. You say that “bottom-aged” players have been undervalued for some time. I agree, but do you mean that more players of this age group should be drafted and developed, to the benefit of both club and player (Jack Silvagni and Harry McKay would fall into this category)? Or, do you believe that the draft age should be raised to… what? And what would be done with those young players in the intervening years after the under-age level but before they could be drafted? There would have to be an intermediate league, no? Sounds complicated. But, then, perhaps it’s better the way it is, with the young neophyte being welcomed to the warm and capacious bosom of the mother club, but being held as long as necessary in the VFL / State League under the watchful eye of the development coaches, with no unreasonable expectations for the immediate future. The responsibility would lie with the drafting club. I ask because I respect your insights.

Walter, I am not sure of the exact reasons but my memory over nearly 60 years going back to the great Melbourne sides is that teams dominant over a period have players with bigger bodies than their contemporaries and over the time since then the bodies have got bigger and bigger. There is increasing emphasis on endurance and strength and I believe players have to cover much more ground in the modern game so the intensity has certainly increased. I wonder if young players are becoming more prone to breaking down in their draft year which if true is an indication that they are being put under too much pressure before they are getting drafted -- this would be an argument for lifting the draft age in itself. A significant number of young players find that their bodies can not and never will be able to manage the training load required to become successful AFL players -- would the failure rate be reduced with a higher draft age? The draft age of 18 is inappropriate for future ruckmen and key position players, Weitering is an exception but even with his enormous talent he is starting off on a flank. Bontempelli is another exception but again his great talent has enabled him to develop in less physically demanding positions when ultimately he will be capable of being an outstanding key position player (no doubt combined with some midfield duties). I have referred elsewhere to Marcus Adams of the Bulldogs and Michael Hartley of Essendon starting their AFL careers at the age of 22, these bigger guys take longer to develop and would be very hard to identify from a talent point of view at the age of 18.

“The current draft age is too young for the modern game…” Aransan, I wonder if you could elaborate on that point. Is it because of the intensity, speed and physicality of the present-day game? If so, I agree with you, but I can recall the VFL/AFL from the 50s on up to the 90s being much more brutal and physical than it is today (cheap shots behind the play, Harry Caspar vs. John Coleman, Ken Boyd vs. John Nicholls, etc.). Nevertheless, I also believe that players should be at least one year older than now when drafted, for their own sake and the clubs’. Perhaps the only solution is to hold them in the 2s for an extended period of tutelage and development.

PD, as we so often see, sanctimonious rubbish like this is always just below the surface, well done.

And now the Swans don't even have to use those later draft picks on speculative players, they can just bundle up their 2nd and 3rd round picks for the best kid in NSW.

Or because we've done an awful lot more with lower draft picks than pretty much every other team that's had much "better" picks.

Michael, my point is that it is very difficult to assess big players at 18y.o. How many ruckmen are drafted at 18 unless they can play in another position? Typically ruckmen have been drafted as rookies at older ages in recent times. My suspicion is that there will be an increasing tendency to recruit (big) key position players at older ages as rookies in the future, the game is becoming increasingly difficult for immature bodies and bigger players take longer to develop. Adam Goodes was a champion but one wonders whether he would have even be taken with pick 43 in recent drafts. The current draft age is too young for the modern game and even more so for bigger players.

Jordan Russell Picked 9 and 10?

I also added 2012 because GWS had first three picks and it's debatable whether O'Rourke and Plowman would have been Top 5, let alone Top 3, in the usual course of events.

Good point Michael. When you can pick-up two of the best young (gun) midfielders through your own special academy and poach two key star forwards from rival clubs, who cares which pick you have in the draft (or what trade restraints the AFL vindictively apply to you). Nicely capitalised, Swans.

Great article. I just really never pay attention to the draft period, largely because as a Swans fan it's rarely been of consequence to us. That Adam Goodes, probably the best, if not top three, player of this century, was pick 43 says pretty much all you need to know about the draft.

Cripps. Carlton.

Interesting read. If anything, it confirms what we've long suspected, that it's pretty pointless deliberately coming last just to get the number one draft pick.

Great analysis and well-presented, thanks Adrian. I really enjoyed it.