Draft of 2000

[punter257]

Re: Draft of 2000

Originally posted by The Whale
5 - Andrew McDougall: 12 WCE

worst no.5 draft pick ever
he is the definition of softness

[Bleed Red Blood]

Re: Re: Draft of 2000

Originally posted by punter257
worst no.5 draft pick ever
he is the definition of softness

They made up for it with Kerr at 19. Kerr's brilliant.

[Ablett_20]

Wow! Now that really was a superdraft!

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by penga
any chance of doing a 98 draft?

Wasn't that the one which had a pile of Rams picked, but none by the Swans?

[Bleed Red Blood]

Originally posted by Ruckman
Wasn't that the one which had a pile of Rams picked, but none by the Swans?

Davis, Hayes, M. McVeigh. Maybe more.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by Bleed Red Blood
Davis, Hayes, M. McVeigh. Maybe more.

Ray Hall, Craig Bolton

Perhaps Ricky thought they were all *****heads?

[SimonH]

On reflection, 2000 was a sensational draft, and most likely as good as 2001. Of course, we shouldn't forget that even in that magic year, 4 players out of the top 20, 6 from the second 20 and 9 from the third 20 have already been delisted. (And those figures don't count those who are still on lists but have failed to make any impact, e.g. Barry Brooks, Mark Powell.)

Without going back into the records (which I'll leave for those with more time), I reckon that 2000 probably runs rings around 1998 (which was the most-hyped draft of the 1990s), and more than likely every draft before it. (The hit rate for drafts before about 1995 was universally abysmal.)

Of course, even 4 or 5 years later is not long enough to draw definite conclusions. In fact, you couldn't draw a line under a year and finally pass judgment until the very last player selected in it has retired-- which these days is likely to be 15 years later! As Chou En-Lai famously replied when asked (circa 1960s) whether the 1788 French Revolution was a success, "it's too early to tell".