Roos..Excellent coach, Lousy recruiter

[ernie koala]

History shows Roos to be an excellent coach so far, the swans record over that period proves it beyond doubt.... However.... Looking at the present list of young players and recently delisted players show his and his recruiting staffs' recruiting (via drafts, trades and overseas players) has been ordinary at best, lamentable at worst.
And I don't buy into the excuse of low draft picks being the reason, you only have to look through the draft history of the last 6 years to see how badly the swans stack up against other clubs, regarding potential stars of the future taken outside the first round of picks.
I also think we should of traded some of our premiership players in 06 and 07 when they were worth something. Easy in hindsight I know, but we have a team of recruiting staff and coaches who are paid handsomely to make these decisions. It seems they haven't made many good ones during the Roos era.

[timthefish]

Easy in hindsight I know

especially if you limit your analysis to generalisations without providing specifics.

for example, you could have discussed the merits of picking up darren jolly.....

[mcs]

IMO you summed up your argument perfectly when you said its 'easy in hindsight'.

I'm not sure his record is any worse then anybody else, because when it comes down to it, most years in the draft (Of course there are players that are exceptions, but we have not had under Roos ever picks high enough to guarantee to pick them up- I'm referring to sort of top 3 or 4 players most years) there is a lot of pick and hope about it. For underage footy is a hell of a lot different to AFL footy. Perhaps we have just been unlucky with our selections? There have been some possibly questionable decisions with our 1st round draft picks and who we have taken, but at the stage we have been in those (i.e. later in the 1st rd) usually there are a lot of good prospects with similar sort of U/18's etc performances, and it can be almost just the luck of the draw.

Just because we haven't done as well as some other clubs recently with draft recruiting in my opinion says very little overall about our recruiting. Perhaps our record might be poorer then others, but it evens out over time. Go back through the drafts and see some of the crackers we have picked up with low draft picks and some of the shockers we have got with high picks?? Some periods have been more successful then others, but it is one part of footy where I think luck has a decent amount to play in it.

As for delistings/lower trades/overseas players, that is always taking a punt. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Perhaps because we have probably taken more players in this way then most,then it might look worse, but I'm sure most clubs have similar sort of experiences. Its very much hit and miss at the best of times.

Of course we probably should have traded some of our premiership players. But who would you have traded, and how do you know anyone would of taken them?

To be honest, trading Premiership players in 06 would of been absurd. We came within a point (and a few dodgy umpiring calls) from going back to back, and I don't think there is a single person on this board or Swans fan for that matter that could have predicted the massive change in Footy between the GF of 06 and the 2007 season. Trading Premiership players in 2006 would have imo been met with dismay and quite a lot of anger. It was, and should not have been an option even considered.

There is more of an argument definetly for it happening at the end of 07, and well it happened to some extent with Schneider and Dempster going.

Overall though, you are being fairly harsh imo on Roos and co. They have made mistakes, but most coaches do. Sometimes it pays off (i.e. Stuart Dew going to Hawthorn last year), sometimes it doesnt (Spida to us). There is a lot of factors involved in drafts/trades etc that mean its much more complicated then many would like to think it is.

[Robbo]

Drafting O'Keefe in the 06 draft is probably the worst decision made from a drafting sense since Roos has been at the helm. He wasn't expected to go in the first round so it makes you wonder why they took him. He wasn't one of the better performers in the under 18 carnival that year. I really don't know what they saw in him.

[Nico]

While I have some empathy with Ernie I think we need to wait to see how we go this year. I suspect he is pre-empting a poor 2009.

There is no doubt that at the end of this season there will saddle bags full of money in the salary cap, that they can hopefully pick a couple of quality established players with (if they exist) and they will to a large extent have no other option but to largely recruit young footballers.

I suspect Ernie feels like I do that we don't look to have an emerging superstar or power forward or backman.

[Nico]

Drafting O'Keefe in the 06 draft is probably the worst decision made from a drafting sense since Roos has been at the helm. He wasn't expected to go in the first round so it makes you wonder why they took him. He wasn't one of the better performers in the under 18 carnival that year. I really don't know what they saw in him.

Robbo, we have few like him who must make their mark this year or it's cheerio. So next year will be a big year for recruiting young players or mature players in other comps previously overlooked perhaps. No matter what, even if we won the flag, we will be very active come draft time.

[Legs Akimbo]

History shows Roos to be an excellent coach so far, the swans record over that period proves it beyond doubt.... However.... Looking at the present list of young players and recently delisted players show his and his recruiting staffs' recruiting (via drafts, trades and overseas players) has been ordinary at best, lamentable at worst.
And I don't buy into the excuse of low draft picks being the reason, you only have to look through the draft history of the last 6 years to see how badly the swans stack up against other clubs, regarding potential stars of the future taken outside the first round of picks.
I also think we should of traded some of our premiership players in 06 and 07 when they were worth something. Easy in hindsight I know, but we have a team of recruiting staff and coaches who are paid handsomely to make these decisions. It seems they haven't made many good ones during the Roos era.

I think the issue is more complex than that.

First, to be fair to Roos, it is probably too early to say. We'll know at the end of next year.

However, I agree the signs are not good, but it is not just about drafting. My line all along has been that in 07 and 08, there was an unrealistic belief in being able to win another flag and the importance of turning over the list more rapidly in those years was not taken due to the over stated fear of slipping down the ladder and 'losing the Sydney market'. first, who is to say that bringing in Moore, Laidlaw, Grundy et al a bit faster would have led to any worse performances. Second, it would have allowed a faster list turnover becuase they would have had more information about the players than they have now and hence could have taken players who are still line ball (and may or may not make it). recruiting is about the speed with which you can make good decision about players on the list taking valuable aplces, and that requires information, which requires data (i.e. observations of how they perform). Lamentably, the Canberra league is no place to make such observations, although it may provide a guide.

To recapitulate, our list management has been misguided in my opinion, by an over optimistic view on our capacity to win a flag in the last 2 years and fear of failure.

In terms of the drafting, I am all for lateral thinking, but I think too many left of field decisions have been made. Roos / Maxfield seems to have a penchant for finding 'atheletes' who can be footballers. I think such a policy is misguided and is inherently risky. Sure, they might get the occassional diamond in the rough, but on balance it hardly justifies the policy. I would have liked to have seen more 'footballers' drafted and less 'projects'.

Also, I think we've drafted too many of the same type of player - 180 and 170 cm mids. Not sure if this is a 'best available' policy or another penchant. I suspect Roos things talls are a riskier proposition and are better taken through the Rookie draft. However, look at Geelong and Hawthorn, and you'll note that they consistently draft a mix of talls and mids in the draft proper. I think this is sound policy to ensure a balanced list. I was delighted that they drafted a KP forward King Loius this year.

In terms of the actual quality of draft choices, well that's a bit of a lottery. The clubs pretty much have access to the same information, and nothing is certain. Much space has been wasted in this forum on whether high draft picks are better. I analysed the data and it suggested that there is a strong correlation between 1st round draft selections and games played. Beyond that, I don't think it matters. Jolly was a big success, swapped for a first round. Ted Richards, so so. DoK has been a @@@@ up so far. I think Ves (despite my initial impressions) was a good choice - if his body holds up, which I have concerns about. The jury is out.

The recent policy of drafting under age players in preperation for GC is without doubt a massive gambit. One of them did his knee a few weeks back and the ability to know how they will turn out at 17 is much less than at 18. then again, Currie is supposed to have been a big win, but yet to see that opinion validated. The jury is out on this as well.

Finally, on a positive note, I do think we have used the rookie list well and that has to an extent been somewhat of a saving grace. Good decisions have been made on the whole.

Overall, I suspect that the unwillingness to rotate the list faster in 07 and 08 will bite us on the arse they only have themselves to blame for that. the concurrent drating of bottom age players (perhaps in part to make up for that mistake) puts is in a particular point of vulnerability. Ironically, the desire not to slip down the ladder by playing younger guys may lead to a prolonged trip to the foot of the ladder. Risk and return are always related.

[liz]

I
Overall, I suspect that the unwillingness to rotate the list faster in 97 and 98 will bite us on the arse they only have themselves to blame for that.

Not sure of the nexus between 1997/8 list turnover and our current position.

[Legs Akimbo]

Not sure of the nexus between 1997/8 list turnover and our current position.

ha ha - I'm writing a bloody report due Monday and my eyesballs are bleeding from it - took a break to writ ethat and my brain is clearly not functioning

[liz]

ha ha - I'm writing a bloody report due Monday and my eyesballs are bleeding from it - took a break to writ ethat and my brain is clearly not functioning

Yeah, and you missed the reference in your third para too!

On topic, I think we're probably just a little deflated at the moment because none of the youngsters on the fringe of the team has used the pre-season to show they are ready to emerge as a genuine senior player, rather than just a bits and pieces player. It didn't matter which ones did it, but I guess we were all hoping a Laidlaw or Meredith or Smith or O'Dwyer would grab a game - or even a quarter - by the scruff of the neck and show they were ready to mix with the best. But to be fair to them, they've not been given many opportunities over the pre-season to do so.

Roos certainly seems to have put far more game time into his established players this pre-season than in past years. Maybe this is a response to the slow H&A starts we have had in recent years. Maybe he thinks that by getting more time into the legs of McVeigh, Goodes, O'Keefe, Kirk et al we'll start the season running properly. So apart from O'Dwyer of those I listed above, none has had more than a couple of outings in this pre-season, and even when they have played, they've been used sparingly. Which is a bit of a shame.

[ShockOfHair]

I agree with Nico that it's make or break for a few guys this year.

My guesswork on where they stand:

On the verge/highly likely to get serious game time: White, Grundy, Barlow

Next in line (in order): O?Dwyer, Brabazon, Schmidt, Thornton, Murphy, Meredith, Smith, DOK

Talls (based on who played against Crows): Orreal, Pyke, Currie

[Legs Akimbo]

Yeah, and you missed the reference in your third para too!

On topic, I think we're probably just a little deflated at the moment because none of the youngsters on the fringe of the team has used the pre-season to show they are ready to emerge as a genuine senior player, rather than just a bits and pieces player. It didn't matter which ones did it, but I guess we were all hoping a Laidlaw or Meredith or Smith or O'Dwyer would grab a game - or even a quarter - by the scruff of the neck and show they were ready to mix with the best. But to be fair to them, they've not been given many opportunities over the pre-season to do so.

Roos certainly seems to have put far more game time into his established players this pre-season than in past years. Maybe this is a response to the slow H&A starts we have had in recent years. Maybe he thinks that by getting more time into the legs of McVeigh, Goodes, O'Keefe, Kirk et al we'll start the season running properly. So apart from O'Dwyer of those I listed above, none has had more than a couple of outings in this pre-season, and even when they have played, they've been used sparingly. Which is a bit of a shame.

Fixed. You can check my report if you want. I'll pay you by the hour - just have to sign a confidentiality agreement.

[ernie koala]

IMO you summed up your argument perfectly when you said its 'easy in hindsight'.

I'm not sure his record is any worse then anybody else, because when it comes down to it, most years in the draft (Of course there are players that are exceptions, but we have not had under Roos ever picks high enough to guarantee to pick them up- I'm referring to sort of top 3 or 4 players most years) there is a lot of pick and hope about it. For underage footy is a hell of a lot different to AFL footy. Perhaps we have just been unlucky with our selections?

All myself, or anybody else on here can do, is look at what has transpired , ie in hindsight, (in this case over the last 6 years, re; recruiting) and comment on it.
I agree with the notion that after about pick 7 or 8 nothing is certain, which is precisely why we need good judgement at this point.
I think it's a bit rich to say "perhaps we've been a bit unlucky", when we pay both recruiters and coaches plenty of money, in the hope they pick up better players for us than other clubs. In this respect, it appears we're performing badly. IMO we don't seem to have unearthed any potential 200 gamers in 6 years, with the exception of perhaps McVeigh who was pick 5...that's poor judgement not bad luck. I sincerely hope hindsight proves me wrong.

[liz]

IMO we don't seem to have unearthed any potential 200 gamers in 6 years, with the exception of perhaps McVeigh who was pick 5...that's poor judgement not bad luck. I sincerely hope hindsight proves me wrong.

Malceski, Vez and Bird all have 200+ games written all over them, injuries permitting. And for many of the others it is far too soon to say they don't have 200 game potential.

As I wrote recently on another thread, most players are not Judds or Selwoods who show their star potential the moment they hit the paddock for their first game. Kirk, O'Keefe, B2, McVeigh and others on our list did not really hit their straps until at least their 4th or 5th seasons on the list. Even players like Hall and Goodes, who showed glimpses of star quality at a reasonably young age, took until they were 23 or 24 to really put it together.

Most of the youngsters on our list have suffered from

a) being lowish picks who are to be expected to take a little longer (or else they'd have been snapped up earlier)

b) being faced with a remarkably resilient, pretty consistent and - judged by most standards - successful core of senior players which means they haven't been gifted opportunities just because they were young and promising.

c) Last year in partlcular, injuries. Thornton, Meredith, Schmidt and Laidlaw all had their 2008 seasons decimated by injury. DOK's career has been so decimated. In the case of the first two, there is no reason why they shouldn't get over them. Laidlaw and DOK are a bit more dubious given how frequently they've had soft tissue type problems.

Surely the way we are now drooling over McVeigh's contributions and ongoing improvement should remind us that we need to be a little patient and not expect too much too soon.

[Nthblood]

Well said Liz, let these kids develop, Goodsey was taken number 56 in the draft. so you never know, with these players.