Scott Clayton on picking players

He was interviewed on SEN yesterday and was asked about picking ready made manchilds as our own Bob thought they were being discriminated against.
His answer caught me by surprise as he agreed, said he personally looked for ones with improvement in players whereas manchilds have no room for improvement they already have grown to what they will be.
A few of course have become successful but tends to think it’s more rare than picking a skinny kid with a lot to work on eg Bob by his own admission admitted it worked to his advantage.
What’s people’s thoughts on picking manchilds v skinny kids?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ledge

What’s people’s thoughts on picking manchilds v skinny kids?

---

I'm not the professional recruiter but I'd suggest it would be more about whether or not the prospect is good because "they are a manchild" or whether "they are good and also a manchild", and as an extension of that will they be able to transition it to the next level (for example Sam Powell-Pepper managed to maintain his physicality in the seniors, although unsure if he was considered able to be even better than what he is now).

I mean that's all obvious, and there is a lot of gray, but taking someone like Tom Boyd is interesting. Dominant player in the underage comps, with his sheer size (both height and weight) proving a big advantage. However he also had a severely flawed marking technique and was not very good in traffic, and I imagine that didn't matter (and possibly wasn't even noticeable) in the under 18s because he was big enough for it not to matter, but once he was up against men both of these areas became weaknesses he was unable to overcome (to be fair he did improve in traffic but it was never even close to a strength).

Certainly the idea that the kids at a physical disadvantage that still manage to find ways to be good can only improve when their body is no longer a weak point, while the stronger kids are able to take shortcuts which means they are worse overall players is a solid theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ledge

He was interviewed on SEN yesterday and was asked about picking ready made manchilds as our own Bob thought they were being discriminated against.
His answer caught me by surprise as he agreed, said he personally looked for ones with improvement in players whereas manchilds have no room for improvement they already have grown to what they will be.
A few of course have become successful but tends to think it’s more rare than picking a skinny kid with a lot to work on eg Bob by his own admission admitted it worked to his advantage.
What’s people’s thoughts on picking manchilds v skinny kids?

---

Wait wait wait... You're telling me Scott Clayton like the idea of picking skinny footballers?

Everyone stop the presses we have a new headline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hujsh

Wait wait wait... You're telling me Scott Clayton like the idea of picking skinny footballers?

Everyone stop the presses we have a new headline.

---

Haha pretty obvious I know, but to actually say he didn’t look at manchilds was a shock.

Scott Clayton gets a ton of credit for a guy who has recruited three good talls in his over 25 year career (Brown - father son; Lake - dart throw and also because he felt sorry for him?; Lynch - had literally every single pick in the first round). Why is it not surprising that he is also apparently a phrenologist.

Scott Clayton helped put together a list that almost got us to a couple of grand finals. He's not a complete dill.

I get that he wasn't perfect and he had a bit of a penchant for those who looked better in the future on paper than what they actually would become, but it's a tough job and way more clubs and their recruiting teams get it wrong compared to those that get it right.

Having said that, anyone who drafted Jarrad Grant at number five given the way he held a football when kicking clearly had a few blind spots.