Rebuild with brains

[SimonH]

Something that pretty much no-one seems to acknowledge is that this 2009 draft is, in practical terms, badly compromised. Worse than 2010 (and probably subsequent) drafts. Previously, turning 18 on 30 April or earlier in the year after drafting was okay; now it's a strict '18 yos only' policy, i.e. you must be 18 by 31 December on the year of the draft. This means that rather than the usual 12 months of newly eligible kids coming on-line each year, there are only 8 months' worth this year. Even once we ignore the natural variations in talent from year to year, it's a one-third weaker draft than the usual.

The conduct of the 2010 GC draft will only be 'compromised' for the round 1 picks (esp that allocated to those teams who finish in the bottom half of the ladder), and/or for those teams who were (unrealistically) relying on their first round draft pick to lead them to salvation. In addition, GC cannot run a team with 10 genius 18 year olds and zero older heads, and so will be massively motivated to trade, trade and trade, thereby reintroducing their hoarded draft picks back into the pool.

Admittedly, by GC offering direct contracts to the best kids born 1/1/92 to 30/4/92 at the end of this year, 2010 could be nearly as compromised as 2009-- but the absolute best kids in that age bracket may not necessarily want to accept the contracts, knowing they'll get snapped up in the 2010 draft regardless. Plus the GC's assessment of the best 12 players as at the end of 2009, may be very different to the market's assessment a year later. That year from 17 to 18yoa is a very big development year for young footballers. SA's Matthew Panos was eligible for the draft last year, and no-one was shocked that he was overlooked; but he is currently tracking to go either first round, or very close to it, this year. Our own Craig Bird was, absolutely mystifyingly, ignored on the open market in (I think) 2006.

The practical end of it is: there is no reason to think that a pick 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 (i.e. where the bulk of the draftees come from) will be any different quality in 2010 to any other year. So we don't need to delist obsessively at the end of 2009, under the delusion we won't be allowed to recruit properly in 2010.

Talk of us needing a massive cleanout at the end of this year, gets the timing all wrong (especially with a bare minimum of 4 departures already locked in with Kennelly, Fosdike, Barry and now Crouch). Turning over 14 players in one year is just management saying, 'well, we screwed up the last 5 years, we've wasted our time, and now we have no choice but to start from scratch'. There's just no evidence that Sydney is at that point. Smart rebuilding means that you need to cut and inject youth incrementally each year. Understandably, we didn't cut deep after 2005 and 2006, meaning it's getting tougher now. But when delisting, we still need to ask ourselves, 'will pick 110 in the ND be likely to offer us more, short and long term, than [insert name of mid-20s marginal player]?' Based on the history of pick 110s, the answer is likely to be, 'probably not'.

Oh, and back to the OP: I agree that footy smarts is a far more important attribute in potential draftees, than some world-record in a beep test or really great skin folds. But footy smarts is nothing to do with IQ. See, e.g., Didak. Or Gary Ablett sr. Or Chris Judd. Or Robert Dipierdomenico.

[Bloody Hell]

Interesting point.

Makes you wonder how they put so much emphasis on the vertical leap and 20m sprint at Draft Camp - but no IQ test.

[dimelb]

... Oh, and back to the OP: I agree that footy smarts is a far more important attribute in potential draftees, than some world-record in a beep test or really great skin folds. But footy smarts is nothing to do with IQ. See, e.g., Didak. Or Gary Ablett sr. Or Chris Judd. Or Robert Dipierdomenico.

I don't think Judd belongs in that group, but there are plenty of others available - Steve Johnson , Buddy, etc.
But I think you're right about the trade stuff.

[sharp9]

I guess I confused the argument a little by using Didak...not because he is not smart....clearly he is (like Ablett and Judd and Johnson and Selwood, though none of them is threatening to get into Mensa) but all of those guys are standout talents and always have been....hence it's a bit hard to see where the smarts end and the skills start.

From our point of view we obviously need to recruit that type of player with our top 10 picks...and that shouldn't be TOO hard to do....

My thread point is a bit more left of centre....ie that from picks 20 down we should elevate off field intelligence and learning ability (IQ for want of a better word) to a much higher priority because players with average or less skills can turn themselves into really good players with time. Kirk is the best example this that I know of. he kept getting better every year till he was 31!

Compare and contrast Ted Richards and Nick Maxwell.....same build, same position, same courage, same skills.....not the same brain.

[snajik]

the players always know ho long there is to play...and even if he thought there was a minute left, it was still and appalling decision to get tackled rather than kick it. he must have been the only person in the entire stadium who thought he had time to muck around with it.

Officially on my delist list now. Had enough of this crap.

50 metre penalty was a bit harsh, but....like Bazza....why even give the umpire the option? NOT THINKING. We are the Swans and WE KNOW they will crucify us at every opportunity.

Not sure if you were at the ground or you saw the game on tv Sharps but I think Big Ted is being a little too harshly criticised here. You wouldn't have been able to see this on tv but when Ted first collected the ball his initial instinct was to head for the right HBF area. However this was anticipated by the Pies. Three of them had peeled off to this very area in the event of the Bloods winning the clearance. Therefore Ted hesitated because if he kicked it out there it would have been swooped upon by a loose Pie and possibly resulted in a goal anyway. As mentioned there is no countdown clock, and if there was he may have cut his losses and gone with instinct in the hope that the siren would have sounded before the loose Pie could send it back. Instead he got caught and Swan goaled.

Re the 50 it was quite obvious that Ted didn't hear the whistle due to the crowd noise. Why umpires can use their discretion in other areas of the game (e.g. when Hally tackled Cox then feigned to go on with it - I've seen those frees reversed before) but not in the sacred area of the 50m penalty doesn't make any sense. I think we've played as well as if not better than both of our recent opponents and lost two games where questionable 50m penalties have been crucial in swinging the momentum of the game, and gone a long way to derailing our season.

I've always felt that this has been a blight on the game. Imagine if Hawthorn beat the oh-so-deserving Cats in last year's GF because of a couple of soft 50s. The rule change committee would definitely have been focusing on that one instead of the deliberately rushed behind furphy, or hand in the back nonsense.

Can anyone recall when the 15 metre penalty became the 50 metre enalty btw? My recollection is late 80s / early 90s. It was still 15m in 87 when Hawthorn controversially beat Melb (courtesy Gary Buckenara as well as Jim Stynes) to advance to the GF following a 15m penalty. Hardly an incremental increase. Can you imagine receiving a letter from your back stating that they were about to increase your mortgage rate from 5% to 17% starting next month. Surely a 30m penalty would have been more reasonable, though Davis probably would have kicked the goal in question anyway. What doesn't make sense is that it is applied in the same manner for reckless actions and innocuous ones. It really is an ugly part of the game.

[connolly]

Compare and contrast Ted Richards and Nick Maxwell.....same build, same position, same courage, same skills.....not the same brain.

But if you had choice between Teddy's bonce and Maxwell's its a no brainer.

[shaun..]

Not sure if you were at the ground or you saw the game on tv Sharps but I think Big Ted is being a little too harshly criticised here. You wouldn't have been able to see this on tv but when Ted first collected the ball his initial instinct was to head for the right HBF area. However this was anticipated by the Pies. Three of them had peeled off to this very area in the event of the Bloods winning the clearance. Therefore Ted hesitated because if he kicked it out there it would have been swooped upon by a loose Pie and possibly resulted in a goal anyway. As mentioned there is no countdown clock, and if there was he may have cut his losses and gone with instinct in the hope that the siren would have sounded before the loose Pie could send it back. Instead he got caught and Swan goaled.

I remember the initial feign and then hesitation. I'm pretty sure he had support around and a number of handball options also but chose to run it out instead. Was lucky not get HTB but they goaled anyway.