What about our drafting, then?

**Mike_B** · 22 April 2005, 09:54 AM

The only comment I'll make on the 2002 draft is to remind you that we drafted Dempster as a Father/Son, so who knows if he would have gone earlier/later whatever.

**Wil** · 22 April 2005, 10:05 AM

I have been waiting for this thread.

Don't forget we also "Drafted" Jolly at 15 this year.

Erickson was a bit of a reach - surely he would of dropped to 59.

I think Roos has been drafting for about 4 years into the future with his picks. The problem with that is we became a premiership chance as soon as he took over the reins and have needed a couple of immediate impact players (like this years draft).

But still is the problem poor drafting and talent scouting or poor development.

**sharp9** · 22 April 2005, 11:21 AM

The thing is all of us have a sneaking suspicion that M. Davis, Dempster, Moore, Willoughby, Schmidt and Malceski will be premiership players who will make other teams fans write threads like this one going "How the **** did we let them get Malceskiat sixty- ****ing - four? When we picked up Greg Couldn't get a game for East Perth Edgcombe at 48???"

Well that's the hope anyway.

I can see a Swans premiership team that contains only 3 top ten draft picks (Jude, Crouchy and McVeigh) along with

9 players who didn't even get drafted, or were delisted once they were drafted

Kirk (Rookie)
Jolly (Rookie)
Bevan (Rookie)
Kennelly (Rookie)
Ben Fixter (Pre-Season)
Buchanan (Delisted)
James (Delisted)
Spriggs (Delisted)
Maxfield (Not required by Richmond)

A Couple of Zone Selections who wouldn't have been drafted by other clubs

Mathews
Barry

And how about some high picks?

Williams (70)
Schauble (66)
Schneider (60)
O'Keefe (56)
Goodes (43)
O'Loughlin (40)

And if any of these guys make it it really will be something to crow about

Malceski (64)
M. Davis (58)
Sundqvist (54)
Ericksen (48)

Not to mention the current rookies. it's gotta give comfort to those who get overlooked at first.

**liz** · 22 April 2005, 12:31 PM

There are very few of those player you have listed who make me green with envy. And most of them have achieved nothing more of any substance than the Sydney player you are "comparing" them against.

Part of the reason our younger players have been taking a bit more time is that we have a solid core of senior age players who may lack brilliance as a group but are consistent and dependable. Compare that to the teams who have been struggling, either a few years ago or more recently. They've given young players opportunities earlier because they have had no decent mature players to stand in their way.

But I strongly believe that playing kids for the sake of playing kids is misguided if you actually have a decent senior core. Otherwise you're just in a perpetual state of rebuilding without ever actually making progress.

Yes, it would be great to get a Judd or Ball into the team, someone who right from the start becomes an important member of the team but it is very much the exception, not the rule. Ablett is a good example of why it is important to let younger players develop at their speed and show a bit of patience, especially when you don't need to give them too much too soon.

I would also suggest that the Swans drafting has deliberately taken a longer term view in recent years, probably in the knowledge that they didn't need to rush youngsters into the team just to be able to field a competitive unit. McVeigh and Schmidt were both players who had missed most of their final U18 year through injury and it was known that they would need at least a year in the system to start to challenge. Erikson, Willoughby, Davis, Sundqvist, Hunt (and McVeigh as well) were all lightly built when drafted (some still are) so were going to take time. Moore was drafted knowing that he probably didn't have the endurance to slip in straight away. Schneider is another in that box, and he was also very young when drafted. LRT and Dempster (not to mention Goodes and Kennelly) were drafted in the knowledge that they had limited AFL background and so would take a bit of time.

**Snowy** · 22 April 2005, 12:57 PM

To date the recent drafts have been of very dubious quality though you have to wait a few years to fully assess any draft. Very few of those overlooked would be much better than those drafted. Rivers is someone who would have been useful given the dearth of tall, quality backmen. What would have been the point in selecting Ackland when a first round pick was surrendered for Jolly? The main criticism would be that Roos has publicly stated his lack of faith in the drafting system in comparison to other coaches and a penchant for 'dwarfish' type midfielders. Certainly there are a few players following McVeigh who have the potential to be better than him but with the local boy factor considered it was probably on balance a good decision. The 2002 draft was notoriously thin. Currently there are several clubs unfavourably mulling over recent choices. Obviously losing puts drafting further under the microscope. Most clubs who haven't benefited from lots of early choices will find that their drafting doesn't stack up alongside the likes of the Saints. The Cats have done well without having too many early picks but had some lucky father/son gets.

**Thunder Shaker** · 22 April 2005, 01:22 PM

We may have passed up a few better players, but at least we're not Essendon or Collingwood. The AFL website have just done a similar same treatment for Essendon and Collingwood, and compared to them our recruiting hasn't been too bad.

Why Essendon and Collingwood are battling

**Legs Akimbo** · 22 April 2005, 02:56 PM

This is a great analysis which I have also been waiting for someone to do.

My gut feeling prior to seeing this was that we had completely screwed up our draft selections over the last 5 years. However, looking down the list there are only a few players that we passed on that I seriously would regret in hindsight.

I think the insight is that mediocrity begets medicority - finishing bottom-eight over an extended period weakens the playing group and leads to a team of plodders.

Melbourne have been the masters of up and down years which is the best way to breed a confident and talented player group.

Maybe we need to do something drastic and swap a few of our 'better' players for draft picks acknowledging this will wreck the following season and result in a low ladder position. That would mean we get good picks in year 1 (from trading), probably even better picks in year 2 (from finishing last). Year 3 is consolidation and years 4 and 5 are proper tilts at the flag.

I would offload...

Bolton
O'Keefe
Goodes
MOL
Tagh Kennelly
Schnieder
Crouch

Then again, maybe no one would want them.

**ugg** · 22 April 2005, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo

Melbourne have been the masters of up and down years which is the best way to breed a confident and talented player group.

Right, and how many flags have Melbourne won in the past 10-15 years?

Maybe we need to do something drastic and swap a few of our 'better' players for draft picks acknowledging this will wreck the following season and result in a low ladder position. That would mean we get good picks in year 1 (from trading), probably even better picks in year 2 (from finishing last). Year 3 is consolidation and years 4 and 5 are proper tilts at the flag.

AKA tanking. No thanks, I would stop supporting the club if such a policy was actively pursued.

I would offload...

Bolton
O'Keefe
Goodes
MOL
Tagh Kennelly
Schnieder
Crouch

Then again, maybe no one would want them.

High draft picks don't guarantee you a great player. We would be foolish to trade all those players for draft picks.

**Snowy** · 22 April 2005, 03:25 PM

Melbourne on the surface looked to have done well. especially with KPP's, but look at how many picks they expended in some cases to get the result. Luke Molan a top tenner anyone?

**Nico** · 22 April 2005, 04:41 PM

Sharp,

Very innovative and thought out. One problem. There are plenty on your lists of "passed ups" who are genuinely no good.

**hammo** · 22 April 2005, 05:04 PM

The simple explanation is that we have a fairly strong list and haven't had to make drastic changes.

Few, if any, clubs aggressively trade these days.

The clubs who are playing their most recent draft picks now are the weaker teams.

**Vivien** · 22 April 2005, 07:08 PM

Melbourne teams are lucky in that they can afford to finish on the lower rungs of the ladder for several consecutive years -therefore obtaining a number of high draft picks- without compromising their fan base. St Kilda is an example of a team that is currently reaping the rewards of the draft system. We, on the other hand, can't afford not to make the finals every year, and certainly can't afford to finish last consistently because our fan base would suffer just too much. So in fairness to the club, we haven't really had the quality draft picks that other sides have had for a number of years.

Because short term success has been sought by the club in order to break into the code-saturated market up here, I also think we have had a tendancy to look for short term solutions to problem areas in the team, and our draft policy has consequently been compromised. I think that attitude is changing a little now, though.

Also, I saw in the SMH recently that the AFL is considering bringing in a system that allows the Swans first access to all NSW draft picks. Is this right? And does anyone know the status of that possible policy?

**Charlie** · 22 April 2005, 07:42 PM

Re: What about our drafting, then?

Originally posted by sharp9

2002 Draft Sydney Games Total 25

(5) Jarrad McVeigh 22 games - we passed up
(6) Salopek/Port
(7) Mackie/Geelong
(10) Laycock/Essendon
(13) Schammer/Fremantle
(19) Selwood/Brisbane
(26) Rivers/Melbourne

(32) Jericho/Adelaide

I'd rather have McVeigh than Salopek, Laycock, Selwood and Jericho. Mackie and Schammer are a little ahead at this stage, but not drastically so. Rivers is a different type of player, albeit a very good one.

(34) Sean Dempster 2 Games - we passed up
(37) Staker/Eagles
(44) Corrie/Brisbane

Meh. Staker is big but hasn't done anything to suggest that's any better than most big blokes who pick themselves based on their size. Corrie's a very good player, but from what I've seen the past two weeks so is Dempster.

(50) Josh Thewlis 1 Game - we passed up
(53) Selwood/Eagles
(56) Shirley/Adelaide

(58) King/Collingwood

We missed out with pick 50. It happens.

(64) Nick Malceski 0 Games - we passed up
(66) Ferguson/Melbourne
(70) Matthew Lokan/Collingwood

(72) Brad Fisher/Carlton

Fisher is the only player I've seen that I would be interested in having at Sydney. Give Malceski a chance before writing him off - he would have played before now if not for the knee injury.

2003 Draft Sydney Games Total 0

(16) Josh Willoughby - we passed up
(20) Butler/Eagles
(25) Miller/Hawthorn

Pray tell, what does Harry Miller have that would solve any problem we have?

(29) Tim Schmidt - we passed up
(33) Adcock/Brisbane
(37) Roach/Richmond....(Father-Son??)
(40) Sansbury/Kangaroos
(44) Dyson/Essendon
(46) Pettigrew/Port

Roach was father son. A few handy players there, but way too early to call.

(47) Andrew Ericksen - we passed up
(49) Logan/Brisbane
(53) Jackson/Richmond
(55) Sam Fisher/St. Kilda
(58) Hudson/Adelaide

Ben Hudson is already about 26 years old. We were looking for a young ruckman, not a middle-aged one. Daniel Jackson looks good, but he was a bottom-age pick and wouldn't have played in any team that was winning games last year.

(59) Matthew Davis - we passed up
(60) Rowe/Collingwood
(70) Hartigan/Richmond
(72) DeLuca/Carlton
(760 Raines/Richmond
(61) Rischitelli/Brisbane

With the exception of Hartigan and the possible exception of DeLuca, what a wonderful list of no-names. Rischitelli has played what, three or four games? This makes him inherently better than Davis how?

2004 Draft Sydney Games Total 0

(31) Jarred Moore - we passed up
(33) Ackland/St. Kilda
(45) Sherman/Brisbane
(50) Attard/Brisbane
(53) Taylor/Hawthorn
(60) Thomas/Essendon
(62) Egan/Geelong

Ackland is irrelevent. We had already recruited a ruckman, and a better one than Ackland at that. None of the others had reviews from U18 football that were comparable to Moore.

In summary, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Unless your argument is a derivative of Footyhead's, whereby the club plays 18 or 19 year olds because they are 18 or 19 year olds, but retains the 'mediocre' tag.

**Steve** · 22 April 2005, 08:07 PM

This analysis shows just how decent the selections over the last couple of years have been.

Games played in their first couple of years are a fairly meaningless guide - has depended much more on our reasonable run with injuries and the consistency of our best 25-odd players.

Matthews has hardly pushed through vast numbers of young players - he has stated that playing more than 3-4 in the one side is a last resort.

Malthouse the same - the only reason he plays some of his @@@@e younsters is that you have to field 22 each week.

What about our drafting, then?

What about our drafting, then?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment