Bulldogs inject scouting muscle

[LostDoggy]

Bulldogs inject scouting muscle

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,24701405-19742,00.html

The Herald Sun
Jon Ralph | November 25, 2008 12:00am


THE Western Bulldogs have named a new-look recruiting team to replace Scott Clayton. Clayton will represent the Bulldogs at Saturday's national draft before becoming the Gold Coast's recruiting manager.

Veteran junior talent spotter Simon Dalrymple, this year's Dogs development coach, will become the club's recruiting manager.

Joining him is Champion Data stats guru Adrian Caruso, who will use his technical expertise in recruiting as well as opposition analysis.

The Dogs hope the blend will be ideal - Dalrymple's eye for talent honed over more than a decade of work at TAC Cup level, with Caruso's ability to use computer expertise to help in recruiting.

Dalrymple spent a decade at TAC Cup clubs Northern Knights and Eastern Ranges and has always wanted to be a recruiting manager.

But he knows the accountability will be ramped up with fans scrutinising selections.

"Yeah, definitely, and you expect that. It's part of the business, but I am just keen to have a crack at it," Dalrymple said.

"I should be (accountable) because recruiting is a big part of football. It's your next wave of players coming through."

Caruso has been poached after shining with both his detailed opposition analysis and breakdown of the strengths and weaknesses of budding AFL players.

"Clubs are coming to us to educate them on decisions based on what we have seen of the kids," he said.

"Over the last four years we have covered 200 games of TAC Cup, SANFL and WAFL, so we give clubs vision with the stats and at our end we are able to extract all the data and analyse it and say, 'These are the best kicks, these are the best marks', so clubs are saying, 'We want a midfielder. Who is the best that will be able to produce what they are doing in the AFL?'.

"Now I will be able to help a club with their decisions based on the knowledge I have gained."

[GVGjr]

Terrific appointment for Dalrymple. He has certainly served his apprenticeship around junior football. No mention of if he is the list manager as well because I believe that was part of Claytons duties.

[LostDoggy]

What happened to the Carlton guy?

[Desipura]

I also like the 'left field appointment' in Adrian Caruso. The guy has been analysing u18s players strengths and weaknesses for a number of years now. I look forward to reading his AFL perspectus each year as it gives me an insight in players that I would not normally have access to.

[Mofra]

I also like the 'left field appointment' in Adrian Caruso. The guy has been analysing u18s players strengths and weaknesses for a number of years now. I look forward to reading his AFL perspectus each year as it gives me an insight in players that I would not normally have access to.
Agree, glad the club has continued to think outside the square.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Terrific appointment for Dalrymple. He has certainly served his apprenticeship around junior football. No mention of if he is the list manager as well because I believe that was part of Claytons duties.

Terrific appoinment for Dalrymple but is it a terrific appointment for us??

I have presumed that Fantasia now does most of the list management stuff, but that may not be correct

[bornadog]

Terrific appoinment for Dalrymple but is it a terrific appointment for us??

I have presumed that Fantasia now does most of the list management stuff, but that may not be correct

I think it is a good appointment for us, especially with the experience he has had at junior level.

[Bulldog Revolution]

I think it is a good appointment for us, especially with the experience he has had at junior level.

Cheers Bornadog,

It's clearly time for a new recruiting direction so I guess we all hope that Dalrymple is a huge success

[alwaysadog]

Cheers Bornadog,

It's clearly time for a new recruiting direction so I guess we all hope that Dalrymple is a huge success

Any reason(?) to suggest you have reservations?

[azabob]

In the latest issue of the bulldog magazine one of the articles was again on our new recruiting team.
Did anyone else get the impression they gave a few back handers to Clayton and his offsider?(his name has slipped from my mind)
As in they wont be really drafting anymore "speculative" picks?
Dalrimpyle went on to say that if he drafts someone he be able to say why he drafted him and have reasons and data to back him up rather than say we liked the look of him.
My better half threw out the mag so I can't quote the article specifically but just interested in others thoughts.

[LostDoggy]

In the latest issue of the bulldog magazine one of the articles was again on our new recruiting team.
Did anyone else get the impression they gave a few back handers to Clayton and his offsider?(his name has slipped from my mind)
As in they wont be really drafting anymore "speculative" picks?
Dalrimpyle went on to say that if he drafts someone he be able to say why he drafted him and have reasons and data to back him up rather than say we liked the look of him.
My better half threw out the mag so I can't quote the article specifically but just interested in others thoughts.

I'm more concerned about the bolded bit than anything else in this post. What's going on? If you need suggestions re: where to hide your stuff from your spouse I'm sure plenty of WOOFers will be happy to provide some.

[azabob]

I'm more concerned about the bolded bit than anything else in this post. What's going on? If you need suggestions re: where to hide your stuff from your spouse I'm sure plenty of WOOFers will be happy to provide some.

Good point Lantern, normally its not an issue, unless she asked do I still want this? Chances are I probably said no but in reality I wasn't paying attention!

[alwaysadog]

In the latest issue of the bulldog magazine one of the articles was again on our new recruiting team.
Did anyone else get the impression they gave a few back handers to Clayton and his offsider?(his name has slipped from my mind)
As in they wont be really drafting anymore "speculative" picks?
Dalrimpyle went on to say that if he drafts someone he be able to say why he drafted him and have reasons and data to back him up rather than say we liked the look of him.
My better half threw out the mag so I can't quote the article specifically but just interested in others thoughts.

I read it too, but I'm a little less than impressed by the current habit of bagging your predecessors and pointing out their perceived faults before you have any runs on the board yourself.

I would have been much happier if it had been a positive piece about the new direction and explained that in some detail. Whereas we don't really know actually how they are going to go about it.

There is some talk about data and reasons etc. but this doesn't tell one everything. I'm not against data but IMHO it has not reached a sufficiently advanced and sophisticated state where one can use it to do more than to sort the grain from the chaff. In fact unless you are absolutely convinced you have all the necessary data it can present a very lopsided picture.

It's certainly not going to take the uncertainty out of drafting, maybe it will reduce it... but equally an overreliance could increase it.

Certainly not the time for an untried team to give the impression they will be so much better than their predecessors.

[LostDoggy]

Having all the data is useful backgound but instinct (call it gut feel) remains an important chunk of the recruiting criteria.

One would hope these guys are not entirely driven by statistics because we all know what is said about statistics.

[alwaysadog]

Having all the data is useful backgound but instinct (call it gut feel) remains an important chunk of the recruiting criteria.

One would hope these guys are not entirely driven by statistics because we all know what is said about statistics.

I agree; at the end of the 2006 season we finished in the top 8 yet nearly all the stats showed us well down the list.

I discussed this with my physio, another mad Doggie's supporter, while he was cracking my back, and he made the obvious point - if the stats don't fit with reality then the wrong things are being counted.

The other point is that some things just aren't objectively quantifiable. This debate has been going on in education for decades and it's now accepted that most tests just examine the trivial aspects, they don't evaluate complex learning tasks, the same could be said of football.

What would be sensible would be a balance of the two approaches. Insights and observations of the unquantifiable aspects and careful but not obsessive scrutiny of the quantifiable.