Recruiting 5 year plan

[LostDoggy]

Just wondering for all you closet recruiters out there. Do clubs recruit on a 5 year plan. Most people know about business plans. Usually they have a short term plan and a 5 year plan.

When it comes to recruiting I just don't get why we don't have a 5 year recruiting plan. Surely makes more sense to predict needs for the team in 5 years time as opposed to just getting recruits based on holes in the team now.

We all know it takes 4 to 5 years for Tall KPP/Rucks to develop so part of the recruiting now should be looking at replacing players in those positions once they turn 30. Therefore say in a Scott Lucas and Loyd's case you would be seriously looking at recruiting KPP players to replace them once they turn 26-28 and developing them to peak when those players are on the decline.

Its becoming more and more obvious clubs have relied on Coaches to much on the input to recruiting. Who in themselves may only be around for 3 years. Whilst there careers live and die by the players at there disposal my belief is they should have very little to do with recruiting. We all know that Rhode cost us dearly. Wallace also I feel recruited poorly. Just look how he handled Richmonds list.

Recruiting and Coaching departments should be fully independent of each other and the decisions holey for recruiting should done by that department only. Coaching can influence the recruiting based on reports of what is missing in the team as players develop and drop of the list. This way you can develop a holistic approach to recruiting. Recruiting for now and future needs independent of coaching staff who are transient like the players. Bit like the Government is independent of the Reserve bank who make decisions in the best interest of Australia not the current party in Government.


I do think our list management has been excellent in recent times and I congratulate the team of people at the Dogs for that. Still I think this is one area where clubs do not put enough effort into and is the most important.


Thoughts?

[hujsh]

Recruiting and Coaching departments should be fully independent of each other and the decisions holey for recruiting should done by that department only. Coaching can influence the recruiting based on reports of what is missing in the team as players develop and drop of the list. This way you can develop a holistic approach to recruiting. Recruiting for now and future needs independent of coaching staff who are transient like the players. Bit like the Government is independent of the Reserve bank who make decisions in the best interest of Australia not the current party in Government.


But then the coach may end up with the wrong type of players to suit his gameplan. The coach knows what players he needs to win his way, the recruiters have to find them IMO.

[LostDoggy]

Interesting about the game plan. Some coaches have there game plan around the cattle they have. Eade for example goes for quick ball movement so teams don't have time to plug the hole in front of our smaller forwards.

If he had taller forwards I doubt we would be so helter skelter at times with our ball movement.

Then theres the StKilda coach who comes in with a set game plan and enforces that onto the group he has.

The recruiters job is to get the best player available for the team with a view to now and the future. Sure this may conflict with the current coach at times but I feel the coach will use what he has and get the best out of the players available. If we are slow I am sure the recruiter would take that into account the same as if the side is to small or to tall. Therefore the recruiter would be able to independent of the coach make a unbiased pick to the best option for the club and current situation with game plan etc. All this would be put into a recruiting policy which would take into account all aspects.

[wimberga]

I seee your point AW, but it seems like if you have a short term plan and a 5 year plan, then the coach needs to have some input at least on the short term plan, if not for any other reason but to recruit the Harry Taylors and Liam Picken's etc

[boydogs]

Very good points, which make sense and can be supported by examples amongst current and recent coaches (Terry Wallace & Peter Rhode at WB, Denis Pagan at Carlton, Chris Connolly, Paul Roos)

A few things you have not considered -

- The coach is probably the best placed to know what types of players are lacking given the current abilities and expected future development of the group. The recruiter can do the scouting and is the best placed to know what is out there but the coach knows what is needed. This is unlike the reserve bank independence, as they are clearly the experts in fiscal policy as opposed to politicians.

- Coaches definitely do use a favoured game plan, and recruit to that. Look at Paul Roos in Sydney. Sydney probably lack outside runners but only recruit and play solid bodies, can you see Roos using Farren Ray for example if he was recruited there by an independent recruiter - he would be wasted. I don't think it's true that coaches will 100% adjust their game plan to the playing group they have, particularly if it is only a few players that don't fit the mould - it would take quite a few recruits of different types before a coach would say OK now we all need to learn, train and play using an alternate plan and strategy

I'm not convinced Rodney Eade doesn't just prefer to play the way we do rather than focus on recruiting and developing power forwards - Will Minson made a comment that the WB game plan means that even he has to be a lead up player, he and Brian Lake are in my opinion reasonable power forward prospects but not used in that way. Even Cordy and Grant coming through are lead up players - Cordy is being instructed not to be tempted to wrestle, and to use his height and reach on the lead

- Coaches still play a role in the development, selection and game time of players, so can still overlook recruits not suited to their preferred plan

- 5 year planning in recruiting terms would be difficult for an AFL club, with considerations like the premiership window, success of the club year to year affecting salary cap and draft choices, players wanting to leave the club, Gold Coast and Western Sydney taking our players, compromised drafts, availability of player types. Planning amounts to a restrictive premeditation, which can mean you look for a certain player type regardless of whether they represent the best value. Isolated events could change the whole outlook, for example if Jonathan Brown came to the club tomorrow, your focus may change from recruiting 18 year old mid sized lead up forwards to recruiting crumbers around Jonathan Brown that are ready now

In my view, anyone at a club who is self serving is a destructive cancer, and seperation of powers can only minimise but not eliminate the impact. If the coach is willing to recruit in their own short term self interest, that says something about the coach which makes them a dangerous proposition in other aspects of their role that having an independent recruiter would not address

I don't think recruiting to a game plan is self serving, but recycling players when not in the premiership window rather than selecting kids who will help in the future is

[LostDoggy]

I will try and look at each point in isolation as I think we are on the same page in a lot of them.


- The coach is probably the best placed to know what types of players are lacking given the current abilities and expected future development of the group. The recruiter can do the scouting and is the best placed to know what is out there but the coach knows what is needed. This is unlike the reserve bank independence, as they are clearly the experts in fiscal policy as opposed to politicians.

I agree hence based on Coaches reports the recruiter would recruit for the short term needs/goals. Of course this will go by what is available etc. But I feel the recruiter should have the final call on the player/players. Making decision for the benefit of the club/team in the long term as some coaches as you know may be fighting to stay in a job. I believe recruiting can be in the long-term and short term. There needs to be a balance and I believe the current Bulldogs recruiters have done the well with recruiting short term with the likes of Aker, Welsh, and Hudsons to fill the gaps while recruiting in the long term in Grant, Roughhead and Cordy. But we must have protection against coaches who will be tempted to go to far in the short term and cost the chance of ever putting a serious side together.


- Coaches definitely do use a favoured game plan, and recruit to that. Look at Paul Roos in Sydney. Sydney probably lack outside runners but only recruit and play solid bodies, can you see Roos using Farren Ray for example if he was recruited there by an independent recruiter - he would be wasted. I don't think it's true that coaches will 100% adjust their game plan to the playing group they have, particularly if it is only a few players that don't fit the mould - it would take quite a few recruits of different types before a coach would say OK now we all need to learn, train and play using an alternate plan and strategy

I also agree with this and think recruiters would sit down with coaches and work out a recruiting policy based on a game plan. Your point on Sydney though is funny as they Recruited a Ray type in Reece Shaw and he is slotting in OK. I think if a player has talent they will be played. Recruiters once again I feel should have the final say though. That way Coaches can be assesed base purely on coaching. May allow poor Recruiters to get the chop and good coaches to lengthen there careers when assessed purely on Coaching.


I'm not convinced Rodney Eade doesn't just prefer to play the way we do rather than focus on recruiting and developing power forwards - Will Minson made a comment that the WB game plan means that even he has to be a lead up player, he and Brian Lake are in my opinion reasonable power forward prospects but not used in that way. Even Cordy and Grant coming through are lead up players - Cordy is being instructed not to be tempted to wrestle, and to use his height and reach on the lead

Eade is obviously training and pushing to a style that he thinks will win games. Moulding the list to his game plan. Have no issues with this. Just wish we had a plan B at times.


- Coaches still play a role in the development, selection and game time of players, so can still overlook recruits not suited to their preferred plan

This will happen no matter what as players develop Coaches tend to prefer some to others. Recruiters will have the option of using those players as trade bait.


- 5 year planning in recruiting terms would be difficult for an AFL club, with considerations like the premiership window, success of the club year to year affecting salary cap and draft choices, players wanting to leave the club, Gold Coast and Western Sydney taking our players, compromised drafts, availability of player types. Planning amounts to a restrictive premeditation, which can mean you look for a certain player type regardless of whether they represent the best value. Isolated events could change the whole outlook, for example if Jonathan Brown came to the club tomorrow, your focus may change from recruiting 18 year old mid sized lead up forwards to recruiting crumbers around Jonathan Brown that are ready now

As I said earlier there would be a Short term plan and a Long term plan. Players need to be replaced each year and I think we need to recruit for the Long and Short term. Short term would be based on the things you have mentioned but Long term would depend on other aspects like age of players and the time it would take to develop those players that will replace them.


In my view, anyone at a club who is self serving is a destructive cancer, and separation of powers can only minimise but not eliminate the impact. If the coach is willing to recruit in their own short term self interest, that says something about the coach which makes them a dangerous proposition in other aspects of their role that having an independent recruiter would not address.

I agree with you and that is why we have a football director to stand above both the recruiter and coaches etc. He must have the last say if there is conflict or a self serving individual who is just looking for a contract extension.


I don't think recruiting to a game plan is self serving, but recycling players when not in the premiership window rather than selecting kids who will help in the future is

Fully agree.

[boydogs]

The things I disagree on -


But we must have protection against coaches who will be tempted to go to far in the short term and cost the chance of ever putting a serious side together.


I agree with you and that is why we have a football director to stand above both the recruiter and coaches etc. He must have the last say if there is conflict or a self serving individual who is just looking for a contract extension.

To me the football director is the protection, there is too much else the coach has control over and is responsible for with regards to the playing list to take control of the final say on recruiting away


Your point on Sydney though is funny as they Recruited a Ray type in Reece Shaw and he is slotting in OK. I think if a player has talent they will be played.

I just checked player heights and weights, I thought Farren was lighter than 84kg. We didn't play him much though but I don't think he has missed a game at the Saints, he fits into their game plan well


This will happen no matter what as players develop Coaches tend to prefer some to others. Recruiters will have the option of using those players as trade bait.

I don't think this is an optimal solution, you want your recruits to be players you are going to use not just trade later because the coach won't play them. Giving recruiters the final say gives coaches an out when the team is not performing, giving coaches the final say makes them accountable. It would not be fair to recruiters to judge them on the number of games played by their recruits either when this is in the coaches hands

[mighty_west]

You draft for the long term [longer than 5 years] and trade for the short, the rookie system has also made it easier to draft players for the short term to fix holes with the mature aged players.

[LostDoggy]

You draft for the long term [longer than 5 years] and trade for the short, the rookie system has also made it easier to draft players for the short term to fix holes with the mature aged players.

I know you draft for the long term. My point is do you draft for need 5 years in advance. Take us for example when lake is turning 27 do you draft to replace him 5 years in advance to get a person to fill the hole when he retires hopefully at 32. Therefore having 5 years of development into a player for that key role.

[mighty_west]

I know you draft for the long term. My point is do you draft for need 5 years in advance. Take us for example when lake is turning 27 do you draft to replace him 5 years in advance to get a person to fill the hole when he retires hopefully at 32. Therefore having 5 years of development into a player for that key role.

Developing defenders coming through - Boumann, Everitt, O'Shae
Developing rucks coming through - Shaw, Cordy [also forward], Roughead [also forward]
Developng forwards coming through - Grant, Jones, Cordy, Roughead

I'm pretty sure all teams have replacement players develping coming through anyway.

Remember, Lake was drafted as a forward, not a defender.

[BulldogBelle]

Suppose there is tactical and strategic recruiting...

The tactical recruiting should have significant involvement by the coaching department, and should be focused on the 1-3 year objectives of the club ie plugging some key deficiencies whilst not loosing sign of the main objective. Ie recruiting Hudson at 29 yrs knowing he would be around for 3 years as we couldnt wait for some of the rookies and Skip/Street didnt cut it

Whilst the strategic and the most important form of recruitment should be the 5+ year recruits...

I would assume that the mix would need to be 80% strategic and the remaider tactical

Giving a coach to much responsibility and effectively allowing them to recruit the players they want will serve the coaches individual objectives where they seek to win as many games as possible in their tenure, and where that could get them (ie a contract with another club)

Rhode was a perfect example. Recruited hacks at the expense of getting quality youth.

Look at how the class of 1999 has helped us...Murphy, Hargrave, Gilbee, Hahn, Gia....Wiggins and Bowden could have been better but a draft like that with a focus on quality youth is a superior policy to plugging short term holes via a rubber band / band aid / chewing gum approach- it might hold but is going to break sooner or later

[alwaysadog]

Just wondering for all you closet recruiters out there. Do clubs recruit on a 5 year plan. Most people know about business plans. Usually they have a short term plan and a 5 year plan.

When it comes to recruiting I just don't get why we don't have a 5 year recruiting plan. Surely makes more sense to predict needs for the team in 5 years time as opposed to just getting recruits based on holes in the team now.

We all know it takes 4 to 5 years for Tall KPP/Rucks to develop so part of the recruiting now should be looking at replacing players in those positions once they turn 30. Therefore say in a Scott Lucas and Loyd's case you would be seriously looking at recruiting KPP players to replace them once they turn 26-28 and developing them to peak when those players are on the decline.

Its becoming more and more obvious clubs have relied on Coaches to much on the input to recruiting. Who in themselves may only be around for 3 years. Whilst there careers live and die by the players at there disposal my belief is they should have very little to do with recruiting. We all know that Rhode cost us dearly. Wallace also I feel recruited poorly. Just look how he handled Richmonds list.

Recruiting and Coaching departments should be fully independent of each other and the decisions holey for recruiting should done by that department only. Coaching can influence the recruiting based on reports of what is missing in the team as players develop and drop of the list. This way you can develop a holistic approach to recruiting. Recruiting for now and future needs independent of coaching staff who are transient like the players. Bit like the Government is independent of the Reserve bank who make decisions in the best interest of Australia not the current party in Government.


I do think our list management has been excellent in recent times and I congratulate the team of people at the Dogs for that. Still I think this is one area where clubs do not put enough effort into and is the most important.


Thoughts?

A lot of good points slightly undermined by some overgeneralisations. The question is not really one of keeping coaching perspectives out of recruiting but of balancing the two, it's no good recruiting just for the long term future if an Aker is available, and what do you do in the inevitable situation where one or more of your longer term prospects aren't going to be up to it. Plans are just that and life is more complex and so plans need constant modification in the light of experience. Imagine a recruiting dept completely on its own that got it all wrong, sue they could be sacked but it would take the club a hell of a long time to recover.

As with all things it's the quality of the decisions and how that is achieved rather than quarantining recruiting from coaching... balance is a wonderful but oft neglected thing.

[MrMahatma]

Good in theory, probably not so in practice because:

1) - so you pick up another defender to replace Lake in 5 years, only you find out in 3 years that the kid is a spud - then what?
2) You have a 5 year plan, so want to find Lake's replacement this year, only there aren't any good defenders - so do you pick up a dud cause he's tall? Likewise you want to replace, say, Gia - a midfielder. What if there's stand out talls in that draft? Do you leave them behind?

I think the sentiment is there, but you need to be flexible. And I also think that teams do look use medium term plans like 5 year - look at the Hawks a few years back, trade out Hay et al for first rounders and pick up kids.

I think the fact that you can't get first round picks off anyone these days pretty much shows that the draft is considered as important as ever.

IMO the practical way of looking at it is, don't EVER take risks with your first rounder if possible. Do you best to get a bankable 200+ game player on the list each year and you'll be pretty much fine - some years you'll do well later in the draft too.

However, there's really just too many variables. Who's available to trade? What's the age of the list and where are they at in terms of premiership credentials? What does the team need to get to the next level? Are you re-building?

[FrediKanoute]

But then the coach may end up with the wrong type of players to suit his gameplan. The coach knows what players he needs to win his way, the recruiters have to find them IMO.

Exactly.....if you want an example look at Tottenham Hotspur. For the last 2 years they went with a Manager and a Football Director whose role was to identify and buy players. Result, he buys players that the manager does not want/need......result a mess!

[Mofra]

Developing defenders coming through - Boumann, Everitt, O'Shae
Developing rucks coming through - Shaw, Cordy [also forward], Roughead [also forward]
Developng forwards coming through - Grant, Jones, Cordy, Roughead

I'm pretty sure all teams have replacement players develping coming through anyway.

Remember, Lake was drafted as a forward, not a defender.
It's an interesting analysis on developing types.

Defenders: Boumann I rate, although he's raw. Everitt I think his body on body work is suspect so may be better suited to a HB role where he can run off & rebound. O'Shea will be very lucky to stay on the list.
Rucks: Roughead appears to have the goods, Cordy is a freak who needs time (may end up as a forward), Shaw the Jury's out.
Forwards: Grant (is only time & fitness away methinks), Jones is too young to judge (will we end up turning him into a backman?), I think Roughead will become a ruckman, Cordy could be anything.

On that analysis we may end up with Williams at FB with Everitt at CHB until Boumann develops. Roughead as Primary Ruckman with Cordy providing a chop out, Grant and Jones forward.

The problem is that relies on all our young talls coming on, and when you consider we haven't developed a tall forward since Ug the caveman was fingerpainting we are probably a big thin in the forward department (if Cordy become a ruck). In the next year or two I wouldn't mind us taking another ruck option as well, as Cordy may well end up as a 204cm Murphy as his turning cicle is tiny and he keeps presenting which is a good sign in a forward.

It's worth mentioning Minson's improvement this year - he'll ruck for quite a while yet.

[alwaysadog]

It's an interesting analysis on developing types.

The problem is that relies on all our young talls coming on, and when you consider we haven't developed a tall forward since Ug the caveman was fingerpainting we are probably a big thin in the forward department (if Cordy become a ruck). In the next year or two I wouldn't mind us taking another ruck option as well, as Cordy may well end up as a 204cm Murphy as his turning cicle is tiny and he keeps presenting which is a good sign in a forward.

It's worth mentioning Minson's improvement this year - he'll ruck for quite a while yet.

Your point about the difference between any plan and reality is very valid in this context. It's not that we haven't previously had young talls on our list it's just that the plan to develop them has been thwarted by reality. In the end for a myriad of reasons they didn't make it. Pretending that any of the current crop are certain starters is equally hazardous. Untill they have established themselves I wouldn't feel safe going beyond, they look promising.

I acknowledge that Chris Grant is now a couple of seasons and 320 games from when he started and that's a long time by some scales, but Ug the Caveman is exaggerating just a tad.

[mighty_west]

It's an interesting analysis on developing types.

Defenders: Boumann I rate, although he's raw. Everitt I think his body on body work is suspect so may be better suited to a HB role where he can run off & rebound. O'Shea will be very lucky to stay on the list.
Rucks: Roughead appears to have the goods, Cordy is a freak who needs time (may end up as a forward), Shaw the Jury's out.
Forwards: Grant (is only time & fitness away methinks), Jones is too young to judge (will we end up turning him into a backman?), I think Roughead will become a ruckman, Cordy could be anything.

On that analysis we may end up with Williams at FB with Everitt at CHB until Boumann develops. Roughead as Primary Ruckman with Cordy providing a chop out, Grant and Jones forward.

The problem is that relies on all our young talls coming on, and when you consider we haven't developed a tall forward since Ug the caveman was fingerpainting we are probably a big thin in the forward department (if Cordy become a ruck). In the next year or two I wouldn't mind us taking another ruck option as well, as Cordy may well end up as a 204cm Murphy as his turning cicle is tiny and he keeps presenting which is a good sign in a forward.

It's worth mentioning Minson's improvement this year - he'll ruck for quite a while yet.

Agree on all fronts, i was making mention that we did and do recruit for needs, all teams have to, its all part of list management, so when your KPP are on the way out, you hopefully have replacements more than ready to take their places.

It;s always interesting to see players who may have been forwards when they were younger, and drafted as a developing forward, yet end up down back, so then i guess you have to always be on the ball recruiting wise, it's a good point you make about O'Shea, unfortunatly he looks as though he might be struggling, add Wight & Skipper to that list as well, thats 2 tall developing defenders and a forward that look as though they won't make it, but thats a seperate issue to actually selecting talls, as they would have had the same expectations as any player selected back in their time.

I think people tend to confuse selecting players with players not making it, yeah naturally alot of players donlt make the cut, thats life, there is alot of luck involved with drafting, many times you see players dominate at the younger levels, yet for whatver reason struggle to take the next step whether it's due to commitment, or injury, or the fact that they were generally just not good enough to go on, where's on the other hand, alot of players that perhaps might not have been stars at the lower age make it.

Clayton hasn't had the best of luck with tall forwards, but he has selected alot of them in his time, and once again, whether it was injury that cut their career short or comittment or just lacked talent.....

Players like Wiggins, Penny [started looking good at the Saints as a key defender before injuries cruelled his career], Walsh [had alot of bad injuries plus the attitude wasn't up to scratch], Skipper, Wight, Wells, Michael West [i really thought he had something, but again, knees were shot], and now with the likes of Cordy, Jones, Grant, Everitt & Roughead.

Mulligan was a name i left out of my original post, but to me, he doesn't seem to have a position as yet, so he's another developing tall, Boumann i guess is similar, but all reports have him doing very well down back, so i placed him in that group of players.

You can see with the ruckman, the ages seem to be staggered which suggests that we do draft at seprate stages [although we neded to bring Hudson in as Minson wasn't quite ready to be the number one ruck and Skipper was on the outer] so that we don't end up with nothing coming through when Huddo & Minson finish up, Huddo's about 5 or 6 years older than Minson, so when Hudson retires, Minson will be top Dog with the likes of Cordy, Roughead, Shaw [if he makes it] at Minsons stage when Darcy retired and so on.