See if you can find more than 1 elite player amongst the top 10 in any test. Seem like being top 10 in the tests is not well correlated with achieving an elite standard in playing footy.
Does that mean ignore the test results ? No, but it does mean they need to be analysed differently in the context of the players best suited position, maybe by a differently weighted average for each player type eg. ruckmen, small forwards, KPPs and mids etc
See if you can find more than 1 elite player amongst the top 10 in any test. Seem like being top 10 in the tests is not well correlated with achieving an elite standard in playing footy.
Does that mean ignore the test results ? No, but it does mean they need to be analysed differently in the context of the players best suited position, maybe by a differently weighted average for each player type eg. ruckmen, small forwards, KPPs and mids etc
Itās interesting that there is not one top 10 player in the comp that has a record of top mark in the pure athletic testing.
Can I just say we are fkn privilege to have that many TAC watchers and especially HM for the in depth knowledge on these players EVERY YEAR! I cannot see any other club supporters having as much impact and taking that much time out of their day, to watch most of these and know so much info in depth about many of them.
Ratugolea is just too small to ruck at afl level, full stop. His leap means he can compete at centre bounces, but he's just badly outsized at throwins especially where he's less likely to get a run up.
I like him as a development kpp prospect (especially with a 2.93 sec 20m sprint time!) but I donāt think heās a legit afl ruck prospect.
I was thinking he was 196-7 or so and might be able to pinch hit there, but if heās 194 then thereās no way, KP only.
Has a fair bit of athleticism and seems to be competitive and enjoy the physical side of the game which always helps
Ratugolea is just too small to ruck at afl level, full stop. His leap means he can compete at centre bounces, but he's just badly outsized at throwins especially where he's less likely to get a run up.
I like him as a development kpp prospect (especially with a 2.93 sec 20m sprint time!) but I donāt think heās a legit afl ruck prospect.
In a similar vein, what do you think of Onagle?
Havenāt seen enough of him to say.
If we want some ruck backup this year Iād be looking at snagging ladhams or lynch with a late pick, depending on how they tested. Or waiting for Hayes next year.
See if you can find more than 1 elite player amongst the top 10 in any test. Seem like being top 10 in the tests is not well correlated with achieving an elite standard in playing footy.
Does that mean ignore the test results ? No, but it does mean they need to be analysed differently in the context of the players best suited position, maybe by a differently weighted average for each player type eg. ruckmen, small forwards, KPPs and mids etc
Itās interesting that there is not one top 10 player in the comp that has a record of top mark in the pure athletic testing.
āInterestingā feels like youāre trying to make some sort of inference from that. I think itās fairly coincidental, but it may be also related to the situation that guys with freak athletic talents will get an invite to the Combine/Draft Camp based on those athletic qualities.
Anyway, assuming Dangerfield is your #1 in the comp, in his year:
Repeat 30 Metre Sprints: 2. Patrick Dangerfield 23.96 sec 3. Cyril Rioli 24.01 sec
Dangerfield was also high in Vertical Jump (3. Patrick Dangerfield 73cm ) and 20m sprint (7. Tayte Pears 2.92 sec (!!) Patrick Dangerfield 2.92 sec ) of the results that were easy enough for me to dig up
Others of interest for top 10 in the comp discussions that I pulled out of 3 years worth of top 10 draft camp results:
2008
=7. Dan Hannebery ā 8.32
2. Rory Sloane ā 14.5
7. Dan Hannebery - `14.2
Dan Hannebery ā 10.17
2009:
4. Dustin Martin 2.89
9. Dustin Martin 24.56
=9. Nat Fyfe 14.7
2010
6 Dyson Heppell 14 13
I guess the point is, being good at footy is the key thing. But, it is still important to have a decent amount of athleticism, and the draft camp serves as one way of quantifying that.
It also serves a (bigger?) purpose of watching how players respond to pressure, and how they push themselves to achieve their goals. A guy who people might think is 20 or 30 (and hence is not really guaranteed anything) has a massive opportunity to differentiate himself from his peers by showing elite athletic attributes, or by showing a mental application to the tests that catches the recruiters eye. As being the best is far more than just having the right physical makeup.
See if you can find more than 1 elite player amongst the top 10 in any test. Seem like being top 10 in the tests is not well correlated with achieving an elite standard in playing footy.
Does that mean ignore the test results ? No, but it does mean they need to be analysed differently in the context of the players best suited position, maybe by a differently weighted average for each player type eg. ruckmen, small forwards, KPPs and mids etc
Itās interesting that there is not one top 10 player in the comp that has a record of top mark in the pure athletic testing.
āInterestingā feels like youāre trying to make some sort of inference from that. I think itās fairly coincidental, but it may be also related to the situation that guys with freak athletic talents will get an invite to the Combine/Draft Camp based on those athletic qualities.
Anyway, assuming Dangerfield is your #1 in the comp, in his year:
Repeat 30 Metre Sprints: 2. Patrick Dangerfield 23.96 sec 3. Cyril Rioli 24.01 sec
Dangerfield was also high in Vertical Jump (3. Patrick Dangerfield 73cm ) and 20m sprint (7. Tayte Pears 2.92 sec (!!) Patrick Dangerfield 2.92 sec ) of the results that were easy enough for me to dig up
Others of interest for top 10 in the comp discussions that I pulled out of 3 years worth of top 10 draft camp results:
2008
=7. Dan Hannebery ā 8.32
2. Rory Sloane ā 14.5
7. Dan Hannebery - `14.2
Dan Hannebery ā 10.17
2009:
4. Dustin Martin 2.89
9. Dustin Martin 24.56
=9. Nat Fyfe 14.7
2010
6 Dyson Heppell 14 13
I guess the point is, being good at footy is the key thing. But, it is still important to have a decent amount of athleticism, and the draft camp serves as one way of quantifying that.
It also serves a (bigger?) purpose of watching how players respond to pressure, and how they push themselves to achieve their goals. A guy who people might think is 20 or 30 (and hence is not really guaranteed anything) has a massive opportunity to differentiate himself from his peers by showing elite athletic attributes, or by showing a mental application to the tests that catches the recruiters eye. As being the best is far more than just having the right physical makeup.
I wasnāt inferring anything, just found it interesting.
I simply donāt have enough data to really make any inference at all. If I had all the test results over the last ten year i would be able to.
At the time I thought that Joel Winkinson was going to be turned into a gun. Pretty close to the best pure athlete ever tested at the camp. Never made it to anything. I think it shows the how the athletic testing should only be a small part.
Itās good they have added the football testing too. It think that helps.
See if you can find more than 1 elite player amongst the top 10 in any test. Seem like being top 10 in the tests is not well correlated with achieving an elite standard in playing footy.
Does that mean ignore the test results ? No, but it does mean they need to be analysed differently in the context of the players best suited position, maybe by a differently weighted average for each player type eg. ruckmen, small forwards, KPPs and mids etc
Itās interesting that there is not one top 10 player in the comp that has a record of top mark in the pure athletic testing.
āInterestingā feels like youāre trying to make some sort of inference from that. I think itās fairly coincidental, but it may be also related to the situation that guys with freak athletic talents will get an invite to the Combine/Draft Camp based on those athletic qualities.
Anyway, assuming Dangerfield is your #1 in the comp, in his year:
Repeat 30 Metre Sprints: 2. Patrick Dangerfield 23.96 sec 3. Cyril Rioli 24.01 sec
Dangerfield was also high in Vertical Jump (3. Patrick Dangerfield 73cm ) and 20m sprint (7. Tayte Pears 2.92 sec (!!) Patrick Dangerfield 2.92 sec ) of the results that were easy enough for me to dig up
Others of interest for top 10 in the comp discussions that I pulled out of 3 years worth of top 10 draft camp results:
2008
=7. Dan Hannebery ā 8.32
2. Rory Sloane ā 14.5
7. Dan Hannebery - `14.2
Dan Hannebery ā 10.17
2009:
4. Dustin Martin 2.89
9. Dustin Martin 24.56
=9. Nat Fyfe 14.7
2010
6 Dyson Heppell 14 13
I guess the point is, being good at footy is the key thing. But, it is still important to have a decent amount of athleticism, and the draft camp serves as one way of quantifying that.
It also serves a (bigger?) purpose of watching how players respond to pressure, and how they push themselves to achieve their goals. A guy who people might think is 20 or 30 (and hence is not really guaranteed anything) has a massive opportunity to differentiate himself from his peers by showing elite athletic attributes, or by showing a mental application to the tests that catches the recruiters eye. As being the best is far more than just having the right physical makeup.
I wasnāt inferring anything, just found it interesting.
I simply donāt have enough data to really make any inference at all. If I had all the test results over the last ten year i would be able to.
At the time I thought that Joel Winkinson was going to be turned into a gun. Pretty close to the best pure athlete ever tested at the camp. Never made it to anything. I think it shows the how the athletic testing should only be a small part.
Itās good they have added the football testing too. It think that helps.