When I read a post about how the Slime had recruited better than Freo, I asked myself, what would determine the success of a team’s recruiting? I thought I would look at the number of players recruited who played a game, are still getting games and the total games played. Surely that would be indicative of how well a team has recruited. That can be measured. The quality of a player and their future potential is subjective and apart from games played is hard to measure.
Given, generally speaking, half of a team’s recruits from a draft are gone or have never played a game in four or five years, that seemed a reasonable theory to me. Surely, if a team has recruited well, their recruits would have been getting games, versus being cut from the list?
So tell me why is that not a reasonable indicator of success?
Freo have 6 players drafted in 2011 still getting games. The Slime has 2.
Please enlighten me and point out which of those Slime players you think have more talent and future potential, even if that is subjective, I'm curious.
But I can give subjective opinion also. Like out of all those drafted by both teams, Lachie Neale is clearly the best of them all. A fit Harley Bennell will also be a clear leader.
The results of the last 12 months show that when we have lost our “gun half back” it has very little to no effect on our game results. If you believe different, show me the evidence. When we lose our “ageing ruckman”, yes it makes a massive impact because he is the best ruckman in the comp and the kick start of our engine room … the midfield … which I argue directly effects our chances of winning. But I'm not sure it's reasonable to blame recruiting for not have another Sandilands in the waiting.
I definitely was not seeing the same amount of negative draft and trade talk this time last year, when Freo was 6-0.
