ANALYSIS: "Cannibal" analyses CFC's
Draft 2004 Strategy
"Cannibal" analyses CFC's Draft 2004 Strategy
Several weeks ago, I wrote a piece on the BB analysing the age & experience of our list in response to a comment that we were a young, still developing team, and concluded that we were a side still in development. In the process, I identified 2006 as the likely next Premiership year, although suggesting it might be possible to achieve this in 2005, but that would be dependent upon the impact of injury and suspension.
As the end of this season, and trade/draft time approaches, I'd like to take that theme a step further. In that earlier review, I stated that the best way to achieve sustained future success was to continue building upon our vastly improved drafting performance from 1999 onwards.
Hit and Miss
I have reviewed our drafting and trading performances to assess our strategies. We have traded for/drafted 17 experienced players from other clubs during this period, of which only seven remain with the club and just five are first choice senior players. This equates to a “success rate” of just 29%. On the other hand, we have drafted (or elevated from the rookie list) 32 kids, of whom 27 remain on our list. Only 15 of these have played more than 6 games but 13 are now first choice senior players for a success rate of 87%. And the two who have not yet established themselves as first choice senior players – Swan, Walker – look very likely to do so which will make it 100%.
On that basis, we must acknowledge that our long-term success is more likely to come through drafting young kids than in trading for experienced players from other clubs.
That does not mean we should NOT trade for experienced players. I would consider a trade if a suitable candidate became available, however, such a trade would need to on the level of our trading draft pick 14 in 2002 for Shane Woewodin. The appalling success rate in recruiting established players compared to our high success rate in drafting kids, means we should, and can afford to be, very selective.
Strengths and Weaknesses
What I have done is to identify our list strengths and weaknesses, so we can better assess what areas we need to strengthen to ensure success, and therefore approach trading/drafting in a more logical, methodical way.
To that end, I've broken the player list down in several ways:
1. into field areas (rather than positions) ie defence, centre, forward, ruck, and on-ball/utility.
2. by height ie tall, medium, small.
For this, I have defined "small" as someone 180cm (5'11" for us older types!) or shorter, "tall" as someone over 190cm (6'3") and "medium" as anyone in between those marks.
I have not strictly applied the size classification across all areas because in some cases it just doesn't make sense. We have several defensive players whose height makes them Medium but they play against mainly tall opponents, so I have applied a Medium/Tall and Medium/Small classification in that area instead. Similarly, in the forward line, the distinction between Medium and Small is virtually meaningless.
To more easily identify list strengths and weaknesses, I have further broken the field areas down into:
1. current players, meaning the player is a regular in this position in 2004
2. players likely to play in this field area in 2005
3. likely to not break into this field area until later than 2005.
Defence:
Tall Current:
None
2005: Walker, Crow(?)
Later: Hall
Med/T Current:
Clement, J Cloke, Maxwell, Presti, Wakelin
2005: None
Later: None
Med/S Current:
Cole, Swan
2005: None
Later: Benson(r)
Centre:
Current:
Johnson, Lonie
2005: Rowe
Later: Leonard, H Shaw
Forward:
Tall Current:
C Cloke, Kinnear, Rocca, Tarrant
2005: Davidson
Later: Morrison
Med/S Current:
Buckley, Lockyer
2005: Burns, Woewodin
Later: None
Ruck Current:
Fraser, McKee, Richards
2005: None
Later: Fanning(r)
On Ball/Utility:
Med Current:
Didak, Lokan, Williams
2005: Mullins
Later: King, Nixon
Small Current:
Davis, Holland, Licuria, McGough, O'Bree, R Shaw
2005: None
Later: Shackleton, B Shaw
(r) = currently on Rookie List
Team Balance
In the interests of team balance, I suggest we need to have the following number of first choice players for the starting 22 and in back-up depth to replace the starting 22 players in case of loss of form, injury and suspension:
Defence Tall
2 + 1 for depth
Med 4 + 1 for depth
Centre 3 + 1 for depth
Forward Tall
3 + 2 for depth
Med 3 + 2 for depth
Ruck 2 + 1 for depth
On-Ball Med
3 + 1 for depth
+ Util Small 2 + 2 for depth
22 + 11
I am therefore suggesting that we need 33 players capable of being first choice players, leaving room for 11 on our list for future development (whether named as seniors or rookies). This is to avoid running the risk of having players unhappy at not getting a regular game and therefore wishing to be traded!
Problem Areas
By comparing our current list to our requirements, I have identified a serious problem in medium/small forwards. It is clear that, since Nick Davis went to Sydney, we have not been able to adequately replace him (recruiting Nathan Brown last year would have been the perfect solution!). We are currently pinch-hitting by using players who are really on-ballers or utilities, but we can resolve this weakness by moving Burns and Woewodin there permanently in 2005. We have plenty of medium/small on-ballers/utilities, so it makes sense to move the more experienced guys out of an on-ball role into the forward line (and it still gives us the match-day flexibility to rotate them back into an on-ball role if needed).
The other serious problem I have identified is in tall defenders. We are also pinch-hitting there this year, using players who are really mediums (Jason Cloke, Presti, Wakes) to play against the key position tall forwards. At this stage, only Tex Walker has stood up at Williamstown to position himself to take one of those spots. I hope that Justin Crow comes into the side shortly and shows promise. If he does, we can probably safely say he will take up a permanent place in the side next year. For the time being, though, we cannot be sure.
On the other hand, we have an over-abundance of on-ballers/utilities. To address the perceived problem of lack of pace, I have identified the following as possessing sufficient pace: Didak, Davis, Lokan, R Shaw. We must retain these guys on our list.
It therefore becomes rather obvious why it took the Collingwood brains trust so long to move Dids and Leon into on-ball roles. They possessed abundant pace and ball handling skills, but the club was forced to use them in small forward roles because there were no alternatives available to fill that gap (which makes it even more inexplicable that Collingwood stopped pursuing Nathan Brown).
What we should do:
From a trade/draft perspective then, this is how I assess our situation and what we should do:
Defence:
We look balanced here, despite a current lack of truly tall defenders.
1. Wait and see if Crow steps up over the next five weeks before deciding whether to take any further action.
2. If Crow
steps up, we will have an over-supply of medium/talls
and should delist one in order to draft a long-term prospect, as there
are currently none in development. The obvious candidate is Presti, who
is one-dimensional and limited to taking on only fullbacks, who would
be taken by Walker or Crow instead. Wakelin is more mobile and versatile,
but is 30 later in the year and thus has a limited future (Presti is only
26). On balance, I would delist Wakelin, as Presti represents depth at
FB to cover Walker and Crow, who are relatively inexperienced, whereas
we have a sufficient number of mobile medium/talls to provide depth if
we delisted Wakelin. Alternatively, if a club should approach us to trade
Presti to them we should do so, as Presti has a high trade value whereas
Wakelin has none.
3. We can afford to wait another year to see if Hall can step up.
Centre:
We lack sufficient depth here, but need take no immediate action, as there are others on our list who can provide short-term depth and there are two good prospects in development.
Forward:
Talls
We look to have a surplus of one tall forward, despite the current spate of injuries.
1. Delist Kinnear (trade if possible as he has some residual trade value, being only 25), who isn't getting a game despite us having no other experienced tall forward available, and draft a long-term prospect.
Medium:
We have no specialist medium/small forwards nor depth in this position.
1. We are starting to play Buckley up forward this year and I suggest we move Burns, who is strong & can kick goals, into this role next year.
2. We need to try other experienced players in this role - I have suggested Lockyer and Woewodin – to take advantage of their marking and kicking skills.
3. Wait another year to see if one of the on-baller/utilities in development looks capable of stepping up into this role before taking any further action.(David King, for example, is trying to build enough versatility into his game to play forward as well as his preferred back pocket).
Ruck:
We are balanced at the moment but McKee cannot be considered true depth in this position.
1. Delist McKee (trade if possible as he has some residual trade value, being only 26) and draft another long-term ruck prospect.
On-Ball/Utility:
We have an over-abundance in this area.
1. Shift the veterans Buckley and Burns into permanent forward roles in 2005.
2. Shift other experienced players into forward roles as well - I have suggested Lockyer and Woewodin, who have the required skills.
Medium:
After making the above changes, we are become more balanced, but Williams cannot be considered true depth in this area.
1. Delist Williams (trade if possible as he has some residual trade value, being only 25).
2. Wait another year to see if the two prospects in development can step up before taking any further action.
Small:
After making the above changes, we are slightly over-supplied in this area.
1. Trade O'Bree, who is a useful player, is only 25 and thus possesses a reasonably high trade value.
2. Draft a long-term prospect (preferably possessing pace).
In summary:
Our current list = 44 players, of which 40 are on the Senior List and 4 are Rookies. Of the four Rookies, two (Maxwell and Crow) have been elevated to the Senior List during the year to replace players placed on the long term injury list.
We need to reduce the Senior List to 35 before the National Draft.
I have identified five candidates for de-listing or pre-draft trading (Kinnear, McKee, O’Bree, Presti/Wakelin, Williams) where we have sufficient depth in their positions to look to the long term for their replacements.
Therefore, there does not appear to be any good reason to delist any of our young players.
Conclusions
The goal in trading for experienced players is to improve our list. In such trading, the essence is like-for-like ie to recruit a good player, the club needs to trade away a good player eg Tarrant for Judd. We cannot expect to get an experienced player of a sufficiently high standard in exchange for one of the proposed delistings.
Although we do not have a specialist small forward, I believe we can more than adequately cover that weakness from within our existing list, so we do not have any immediate short-term needs. On that basis, I see no need to recruit experienced players from other sides.
I would, however, consider a trade of a high draft pick for a specialist small forward, if a suitable candidate became available. However, such a player would need to be of Nathan Brown’s ilk to justify trading away a high draft pick, as it means forgoing the opportunity to secure a young player who could fill a need for the next ten years.
I have identified 5 long-term development gaps for which we need to draft players: defence (1 medium/tall), forward (1 tall, 1 specialist small), ruck, on-ball (1 small).
Our third round draft pick is likely to be utilised to draft Travis Cloke under the father/son rule. There are three roles in which we could use a tall player and he is believed to be capable of filling any of those three roles. Such flexibility means he would represent an excellent investment.
During the trading period, I believe our best strategy would be to package our rounds 1 and 2 draft picks along with the suggested delisted players with trade value, with a view to trying to move up the draft order. Travis Cloke is widely regarded as a potential top ten draftee and we will likely finish the season outside the Eight and have a reasonably low first round draft pick as well (possibly even in the top ten picks). Therefore, I think our best strategy would be to try to end up with two top ten picks and thus conclude the draft period with three top ten ranked, highly talented future prospects.
If this were to occur then, with the expected improvement from the young prospects already on our list, we may be capable of challenging for the 2005 Premiership but ought definitely to be among the favourites for 2006.
My firm conclusion is that we should not deviate from our long-term strategy of drafting kids to continue improving our list, and therefore future Premiership prospects.
by Cannibal
The full list of Draft Selections 1999 – 2003:
The following link is to a word document that lists all draft selections from 1999 until 2003. Essentially it includes data that supports the article.
Click here to view the full list of draft selections
To download, right click and select 'Save As'.
File Details:
CFC 2005 Lineup.doc
Filesize: 37.5 KB
Dicuss
this article:
Click
here To discuss this article.