Tom Boyd actually said...

[mjp]

"...with new draftees, you would know in LESS THAN A MONTH whether or not they were going to make it. Some would come in and you would just say "He's gonna play AFL". Others....".

He actually named one of the others (Roarke) who stuck at it and played some good footy...

"Some blokes come in and you can just tell there is NOTHING they can do to learn how to kick under pressure...".

It was a pretty savage segment on a normally very mild mannered show (Danny/Boyd).

SO:

#1: Is he right?
#2: If he is right, what are we gonna do about it??

[ledge]

I think that’s right . You can just tell

[ledge]

Rourke was one out of the blue . He was extremely good footballer but never actually reached his potential but you could see he had it . Bloody injuries .

[bornadog]

I don't agree fully. It does depend on the player and whether they are a tall or mid size, and then how they grow as they get older. 17/18 year olds are still growing and that can effect their mobility, strength, and even agility especially someone like an Ayce Cordy. Ayce couldn't compete with men whereas he was killing it in the juniors as he was so much bigger than the other kids.

Another example is Picken who was a skinny kid and rejected by many clubs till he was in his early 20s. On Boyd's point, maybe his attitude and his determination would have said, this kid will make it.

[GVGjr]

There are always exceptions but essentially I think Boyd is right. Clubs coaches, recruiters and most savvy players would often know if they have either taken a risk on a player that isn't going to pay off or if they've got it right fairly and they should know this early.
Injuries at an early age might shape the success or failure rates as well and then of course there are some players who just need more time and prove the initial assessment as wrong.

There are just so many variables when assessing players, taller players are in the main going to need more time and the more mid sized players typically make some progress early on.

Making an honest assessment early on is the key and being prepared to take a short term loss is important because on occasions players are maintained on a list for too long.

[FrediKanoute]

Blanket statement. Too broad and generalist. I agree with the sentiment though. There are some guys that just dont or cant translate the attributes that made them draftable in an open age elite competition. Josh Schache, Pat Vezpremi, Tambling.....just a few who were drafted with high picks, but couldnt convert it to sustained performance.

[macca]

There needs to be a third category... is he going to be an eker?

[Mofra]

Can we invoke the 80/20 rule here?
80% he's right, 20% he's wrong.

I submit Podsiadly/Menegola as evidence for the 20%

[jazzadogs]

Define 'make it'.

I'm probably more interested in the false positives - the ones who you thought "yep they're gonna make it!" during the first month, but then they dont. Did Andrejs Everitt and Jarrad Grant make it? They were both disappointing for the draft range they were picked at, but 131 and 95 games respectively might be enough to have 'made it'.

The other thing I would say is there are players, across all levels, who are very good trainers - and that doesn't always equate to match day. So a month of training would need to have some pretty comprehensive match sim to avoid any false positives.

[bulldogtragic]

As a guy who’s been at two AFEL clubs. I think he knows more than me. If he’s right, then you wonder what we see in some fringe players. Or are we know a good amount of the list won’t “make it” but want the best fringe players we can get. It’s an interesting comment from Boyd.

[EasternWest]

There needs to be a third category... is he going to be an eker?

The only criteria that really matters.

[soupman]

I suspect it's more true for the natural players and less of an indicator for the role boys.

For instance Morris I imagine presented well at training professionally but you'd watch him running with the ball and his kicking style and have doubts whether he had it.

[ledge]

Maybe he means ones who are just too slack and don’t have the drive or don’t realise what it takes.
We all know people who had the talent to make it but just didn’t put in.
I think that’s why clubs now interview the parents, teachers etc to see if they are a committed person.
Let’s face it we can all pick those players within a month if your training with them.

[Grantysghost]

I've heard Tom say this. Sometimes I do think he's a bit of an elitist to be honest, surely we back the recruiters over the players... however; I kind of do it too. I look at some players and think, no chance.

I think with some of the speculative/lower picks, it's going to be that it may take some time and first impressions aren't necessarily a fair indicator of what a player will become.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

He's mostly right, which is why I don't like it when we hang onto players too long (i.e. McNeil).

There are always players who surprise you though.