Appendix 1 - National Draft 2021
A matrix of National Draft 2021 "possibles" provides a format by which we can look at the draftees by their height groups. By glance, ironically, the matrix also takes on the characteristics of a distribution skewed to the right (supply meeting demand).
Of the 70 juniors listed, the mode (most popular) and the median (mid-point) are clearly in the 181-185cm smaller-medium group. Generally, it appears to be a draft pool that there are plenty from each group for each club to get what they need. 200+ rucks are at a premium this year, but not every club needs to draft a junior ruck.
Look again at your club's list needs and see who can fill the gaps from this list, and where they sit in pecking order.
Cheers.
Of the 70 juniors listed, the mode (most popular) and the median (mid-point) are clearly in the 181-185cm smaller-medium group. Generally, it appears to be a draft pool that there are plenty from each group for each club to get what they need. 200+ rucks are at a premium this year, but not every club needs to draft a junior ruck.
Look again at your club's list needs and see who can fill the gaps from this list, and where they sit in pecking order.
Cheers.
Adelaide
The 2021 Adelaide list is one that is clearly in the process of being rebuilt.
At its top end, age-wise, it has 10 players, almost a quarter of its list, in the 28+ year old age bracket and much of it has suffered from long-term injury.
Also, it appears the club is desperately trying to rebuild its list over the last two to three years with many juniors, 18 to 21 year-olds.
The kick is that it has 8 junior (18-21yo) "mobile talls" (190-194cms) and it can't play them all, so some will become trade bait. I especially like Worrell, a talented 194cm mobile key position player, who has only played one senior game.
One would estimate that it would be about 3-4 years before Adelaide opens up another premiership window.
This draft, it is hard to gauge what Adelaide will go for, as they appear to have their full quota of juniors. Maybe they'll trade their picks.
At its top end, age-wise, it has 10 players, almost a quarter of its list, in the 28+ year old age bracket and much of it has suffered from long-term injury.
Also, it appears the club is desperately trying to rebuild its list over the last two to three years with many juniors, 18 to 21 year-olds.
The kick is that it has 8 junior (18-21yo) "mobile talls" (190-194cms) and it can't play them all, so some will become trade bait. I especially like Worrell, a talented 194cm mobile key position player, who has only played one senior game.
One would estimate that it would be about 3-4 years before Adelaide opens up another premiership window.
This draft, it is hard to gauge what Adelaide will go for, as they appear to have their full quota of juniors. Maybe they'll trade their picks.
Brisbane
The Brisbane list is an interesting one. Although in the finals, it has the characteristics of a list in flux.
Its core group appears to be spread over each of its groups, with much of it coming from the twilight (28+yo), yet it then jumps to its developing (22-24yo) and junior (18-21) groups.
Also, it appears their management is conscious of its aging runners because of its drafting of junior "smaller-mediums" (181-185cm) and "taller-mediums" (186-189cms). However, they have not drafted any junior (18-21yo) "small midfielders" (<180cms) to replace Neale and Zorko, arguably their two best midfielders.
The kick is that they have more junior small and taller mediums than they need, and some of these will become trade bait.
One suspects, given that the core group mostly comes out of the twilight section, that Brisbane's premiership window doesn't have that many more seasons to run, and even if they do win a premiership, it is unlikely to endure.
This draft, they should be looking at junior "talls" and some small midfielders.
Its core group appears to be spread over each of its groups, with much of it coming from the twilight (28+yo), yet it then jumps to its developing (22-24yo) and junior (18-21) groups.
Also, it appears their management is conscious of its aging runners because of its drafting of junior "smaller-mediums" (181-185cm) and "taller-mediums" (186-189cms). However, they have not drafted any junior (18-21yo) "small midfielders" (<180cms) to replace Neale and Zorko, arguably their two best midfielders.
The kick is that they have more junior small and taller mediums than they need, and some of these will become trade bait.
One suspects, given that the core group mostly comes out of the twilight section, that Brisbane's premiership window doesn't have that many more seasons to run, and even if they do win a premiership, it is unlikely to endure.
This draft, they should be looking at junior "talls" and some small midfielders.
Carlton
Carlton's list is clearly built for a premiership window which should begin in two years time.
The core of their list sits below the 27 age mark, with players in each height group. Although, with six players in their developing (24-26yo) mobile tall (190-194cm) group, they can look at trading 2 or 3 of these for some strong-bodied developing mediums.
The kick is that the list still relies on "twilighters" Curnow & Betts as smalls, so where will their replacements come from?
This draft, they should be looking at some junior talls (195-199cm) to set up under Weitering for their long term future, and a star junior small midfielder.
The core of their list sits below the 27 age mark, with players in each height group. Although, with six players in their developing (24-26yo) mobile tall (190-194cm) group, they can look at trading 2 or 3 of these for some strong-bodied developing mediums.
The kick is that the list still relies on "twilighters" Curnow & Betts as smalls, so where will their replacements come from?
This draft, they should be looking at some junior talls (195-199cm) to set up under Weitering for their long term future, and a star junior small midfielder.
Collingwood
The Collingwood list appears as one in the process of a rebuild. It's core group comes from its twilight (28+yo) and mature (25-27yo) players. However, it also has a specific focus on developing (22-24yo) and junior (18-21yo) smalls, and this clearly shows the dearth of "smaller-medium" midfielder of any age. To run a senior team in a competition that relies on midfield rotations, and to have so few, is astonishing.
Over the last couple of years, Collingwood has loaded up on junior "taller-mediums" (186-189cm) and "mobile talls" (190-194cm). One would expect some of these to be trade bait in future seasons.
In coming drafts, one would expect Collingwood to be focusing on talented junior "smaller-medium" (181-185cm) midfielders.
Over the last couple of years, Collingwood has loaded up on junior "taller-mediums" (186-189cm) and "mobile talls" (190-194cm). One would expect some of these to be trade bait in future seasons.
In coming drafts, one would expect Collingwood to be focusing on talented junior "smaller-medium" (181-185cm) midfielders.
Essendon
The Essendon list looks like a well run list that is about two-thirds through the way of a rebuild. Its only gap appears to be mature (25-27yo) mature smaller-mediums (181-185cm) and taller-mediums (186-189cm), but the developing ones have begun to fill the slack already. The Essendon premiership window should appear within 2 to 3 years. It's a list that appears to be well-run through its transition.
The focus of their draft should be on talented junior "taller-mediums" (186-189cm) and "mobile-talls" (190-194cm).
The focus of their draft should be on talented junior "taller-mediums" (186-189cm) and "mobile-talls" (190-194cm).
Fremantle
The first thing you notice about the Fremantle list is that they have been only able to field 13 core players so far this season, which plays havoc with any list management. The second thing you notice is their list is lopsided and lacks "genuine talls". This means, too much responsibility falls on too few, and that they are playing undersized in certain positions. And, quite frankly, the list looks like it's lacked consistency in management. Consequently, the club holds onto older players, especially tall ones, because it lacks depth in key areas.
The good news is that, over the last 2 or 3 years, they have drafted with depth in their junior ranks from "smalls" (<180cm) through to "taller-mediums" (186-189cm).
The focus of their coming draft needs to be on junior talls (18-21yo) - at least, 1 x "mobile tall" (190-194cm), 2 x "genuine talls" (195-199cm), and 1 x "ruck" (200+cm).
The good news is that, over the last 2 or 3 years, they have drafted with depth in their junior ranks from "smalls" (<180cm) through to "taller-mediums" (186-189cm).
The focus of their coming draft needs to be on junior talls (18-21yo) - at least, 1 x "mobile tall" (190-194cm), 2 x "genuine talls" (195-199cm), and 1 x "ruck" (200+cm).
Geelong
Geelong is the example of the dilemma that a well-organised list manager has with an overly-mature but highly competent list. How long do I keep my twilight players? How do I compensate for this on the list?
In Geelong's case, they have 17 of 44 players (39%) in the twilight zone. Clearly, their manager has chosen to empty out the sections of mature (25-27yo) and developing (22-24yo) players in groups where the "twilighters" dominate (esp. 186-189cm), and fill with juniors (18-21yo).
The kick is that each season the "twilighters" continue is one season less that games can be put into developing (22-24yo) players. And, poor Fort looks like he's never going to get a game. Opposition list managers would be eyeing Clark and Constable too.
One suspects that Geelong will draft some talented junior "smalls" (<180cm) and "genuine talls" (195-199cm).
And, one also suspects that the list manager will be looking very closely over whom of the "twilighters" he can retire or trade.
In Geelong's case, they have 17 of 44 players (39%) in the twilight zone. Clearly, their manager has chosen to empty out the sections of mature (25-27yo) and developing (22-24yo) players in groups where the "twilighters" dominate (esp. 186-189cm), and fill with juniors (18-21yo).
The kick is that each season the "twilighters" continue is one season less that games can be put into developing (22-24yo) players. And, poor Fort looks like he's never going to get a game. Opposition list managers would be eyeing Clark and Constable too.
One suspects that Geelong will draft some talented junior "smalls" (<180cm) and "genuine talls" (195-199cm).
And, one also suspects that the list manager will be looking very closely over whom of the "twilighters" he can retire or trade.
Gold Coast
In the last 2-3 years, the Suns' list management has improved the list by drafting junior (18-21yo) players across the height groups. This season has again been affected by "twilighters" who haven't been able to get out on the field. Witts' injury was a major blow, exacerbated by no developing ruckman to take his place. Gold Coast must look closely at those twilighters who continue to lack immediate impact, and to their lack of "genuine talls" coming through.
At draft time, the Suns need to continue drafting as they've recently done, get the best development coaches they can, and be patient.
At draft time, the Suns need to continue drafting as they've recently done, get the best development coaches they can, and be patient.
Greater Western Sydney
With GWS, there are two things you immediately notice; 1. the list depth, full of "developing" (22-24yo) and "junior" (18-21yo) players across the height groups; and, 2. only 15 core players this season. Injuries would have decimated most teams, but GWS are only half a game out of the finals at R20. Credit to their list managers over the last few years, who have evolved the list.
They do need to look closely at their "twilighters", especially those not playing a core role and breaking down repeatedly. Also, they shall need to choose who, of Hogan, Himmelburg or Finlayson, goes to CHB to replace the aging and repeatedly injured Davis.
They still rely heavily on their "key four" - Coniglio. Greene, Whitfield & Kelly - and their coach will need to figure how to pass down to the next generation in coming years.
In the draft, they'd be looking at a talented "small" midfielder and a junior "genuine tall".
They do need to look closely at their "twilighters", especially those not playing a core role and breaking down repeatedly. Also, they shall need to choose who, of Hogan, Himmelburg or Finlayson, goes to CHB to replace the aging and repeatedly injured Davis.
They still rely heavily on their "key four" - Coniglio. Greene, Whitfield & Kelly - and their coach will need to figure how to pass down to the next generation in coming years.
In the draft, they'd be looking at a talented "small" midfielder and a junior "genuine tall".
Hawthorn
First look at the Hawthorn list leads to major disappointment, after all, this is supposed to be the model club for all other clubs. Yet, this is the 5th year after their premiership window and their list looks very disorganised and lopsided. They have 17 "small-mediums", far too many to put sufficient games into, and clearly costing them in developing "taller-mediums" (186-189cm) and "mobile-talls" (190-194cm).
Further, Hawthorn was reputed to be a young team in the making, yet for a team in its situation, it has too many "twilighters". This is clearly shown in their rucks, where they are stuck playing McEvoy and Ceglar because Reeves is still only 22yo, and he is currently their only long-term option in that position.
One can see that Hawthorn have too many holes in their current list of "developing" (22-24yo) and "mature" (25-27yo) players to open a genuine premiership window. It is easy to predict another 5 years shall go by before it will be ready.
For this year's draft - a junior ruckman (200+cm), a junior mobile tall (190-194cm), and a junior midfielder (<180cm).
Further, Hawthorn was reputed to be a young team in the making, yet for a team in its situation, it has too many "twilighters". This is clearly shown in their rucks, where they are stuck playing McEvoy and Ceglar because Reeves is still only 22yo, and he is currently their only long-term option in that position.
One can see that Hawthorn have too many holes in their current list of "developing" (22-24yo) and "mature" (25-27yo) players to open a genuine premiership window. It is easy to predict another 5 years shall go by before it will be ready.
For this year's draft - a junior ruckman (200+cm), a junior mobile tall (190-194cm), and a junior midfielder (<180cm).
Melbourne
Melbourne's list is good but is vulnerable. The strength of their core is in their mature, developing and junior players, however their key positions and ruck are "twilighters". More so, their ruck is vulnerable. Their lack of a developing ruckman behind Gawn means that, if he goes down, Jackson is pulled away from being a more damaging player. That's they are relying heavily on Ben Brown to be a success for them to go all the way. Already, losing Tomlinson and Hore for the season puts them on the edge. The positive is that they have a strong core of midfield rotations, with Oliver, Salem, Brayshaw, Petracca, Hunt, Langdon, Neal-Bullen, Jordan, Spargo, Pickett, and Rivers.
In the draft, Melbourne should continue to draft talented juniors (18-21yo) - a "smaller-medium", a "taller-medium" and a "mobile-tall". They could wisely be tempted into picking up a valuable mature or developing "Lycett-type" as a back-up ruck.
In the draft, Melbourne should continue to draft talented juniors (18-21yo) - a "smaller-medium", a "taller-medium" and a "mobile-tall". They could wisely be tempted into picking up a valuable mature or developing "Lycett-type" as a back-up ruck.
North Melbourne
Undoubtedly, North is the worst list in the competition and they deserve to be at the bottom. It is as if North are attempting to gain a monopoly in "taller-medium" (186-189cm) flankers - there's 21 of them. Who needs key position players? Who needs midfielders? North's list management attitude must be "let's just play flankers over the ground." One would think that it would take them a decade or more to recover from this.
The only thing they can do is to start building up their stocks of talented junior across the groups and, maybe, in 8-10 years time, they may have a good base to begin.
The only thing they can do is to start building up their stocks of talented junior across the groups and, maybe, in 8-10 years time, they may have a good base to begin.
Port Adelaide
Port have a good list, set up nicely, with a good core of players across the lines and age groups, but has a couple of holes. 1. They lack for one or two small goal-kicking midfielders, and 2. Their key positions, now and in the future, are thin. Their list relies heavily on Lycett, a valuable premiership ruckman, and the developing Ladhams is an important part of their future.
In the draft, Port need to continue drafting in those junior groups that they have gaps in, and they might look to see if they can gain a mature or developing "Lachie Neale-type" from another club.
In the draft, Port need to continue drafting in those junior groups that they have gaps in, and they might look to see if they can gain a mature or developing "Lachie Neale-type" from another club.
Richmond
Richmond is my team. It may seem to be the hardest one to judge but, in fact, it's the easiest because I've watched the list change over decades.
It may be good to start by comparing where Richmond was in 2016 (see Case Studies) and compare it to now. Then, it was clearly ready to succeed, now it's clearly ready to rebuild. After 3 premierships in 4 years, their football committee did the right thing and gave the players a chance at "3-in-a-row", which now seems remote. Which "twighlighters" will be retained, which will be retired or traded?
The kick has been the loss of the developing players who have left - B.Ellis, C.Ellis, Butler, Lennon, Menadue, Markov, Moore, and others. But, the Tigers are not the first premiership team to be hampered by salary cap issues. The list manager has done well to build a list of juniors across the height groups, and these players need further physical conditioning and more game time. But, they do lack for developing medium-tall defensive flankers, maybe Ross and Collier-Dawkins can become those. And, they still need a replacement for Riewoldt.
In the draft, the Tigers may look to trade off their excess smalls and rucks for some of North's developing tall flankers or Hawthorn's "small-medium" midfielders. And, draft a talented junior "mobile tall" (190-194cm) forward.
It may be good to start by comparing where Richmond was in 2016 (see Case Studies) and compare it to now. Then, it was clearly ready to succeed, now it's clearly ready to rebuild. After 3 premierships in 4 years, their football committee did the right thing and gave the players a chance at "3-in-a-row", which now seems remote. Which "twighlighters" will be retained, which will be retired or traded?
The kick has been the loss of the developing players who have left - B.Ellis, C.Ellis, Butler, Lennon, Menadue, Markov, Moore, and others. But, the Tigers are not the first premiership team to be hampered by salary cap issues. The list manager has done well to build a list of juniors across the height groups, and these players need further physical conditioning and more game time. But, they do lack for developing medium-tall defensive flankers, maybe Ross and Collier-Dawkins can become those. And, they still need a replacement for Riewoldt.
In the draft, the Tigers may look to trade off their excess smalls and rucks for some of North's developing tall flankers or Hawthorn's "small-medium" midfielders. And, draft a talented junior "mobile tall" (190-194cm) forward.
St Kilda
St Kilda is a good example of conservative list management. The list manager has an okay spread through age and height groups, but then insures their position by drafting twilight players that never get used - such, in the case of Frawley, McKernan and Paul Hunter.
But, why so many "twilighters" who aren't core players?
Improvement is never linear, as they say, and if St Kilda can discard their unnecessary "twilighters", put more games into their youngsters, and keep drafting across the height groups, their position will improve.
But, why so many "twilighters" who aren't core players?
Improvement is never linear, as they say, and if St Kilda can discard their unnecessary "twilighters", put more games into their youngsters, and keep drafting across the height groups, their position will improve.
Sydney
The Sydney list presents an interesting challenge to its list manager. Where are its developing ruckmen? Apart from Franklin, where are its experienced key position players? For that fact, who are its core key position players? Why does it need 4 "twilight" ruckmen?
Sydney still relies heavily on an aging midfield - Hickey in the ruck, Kennedy & Parker as midfielders, and Franklin up forward.
The positive is that they appear to be building their flanks with younger players, while Dawson and McCartin are developing well as "mobile tall" defenders.
Sydney may look to trade in a talented younger ruckman and a key position player from outside.
Traditional football followers will say, "Get your spine right first, then add your flankers!"
Sydney still relies heavily on an aging midfield - Hickey in the ruck, Kennedy & Parker as midfielders, and Franklin up forward.
The positive is that they appear to be building their flanks with younger players, while Dawson and McCartin are developing well as "mobile tall" defenders.
Sydney may look to trade in a talented younger ruckman and a key position player from outside.
Traditional football followers will say, "Get your spine right first, then add your flankers!"
Westcoast
The Westcoast list is another where the core group already sits in the mature to twilight zone. The Westcoast premiership of 2018 still hangs over the list when each of its core players was 3 years younger.
The kick is that the football department needs to recognise when to rebuild.
The empty patches of yellow in the "junior (18-21yo) group show where they need to focus in the coming draft.
The kick is that the football department needs to recognise when to rebuild.
The empty patches of yellow in the "junior (18-21yo) group show where they need to focus in the coming draft.
Western
The interesting aspect of this list is that injury has pushed it moving forward. Injuries during the season has forced it try out some younger players and this has been to the teams advantage. Surely, the next step needs to be the clearing out of the "twilight" group that aren't core players.
One can see that they need to continue giving opportunity to younger players because other clubs would be identifying talented players that aren't getting a go. Their four developing 200+cm players must have been "eyed" from outside, and could be good trading material for a talented developing midfielder elsewhere. Time will tell.
One can see that they need to continue giving opportunity to younger players because other clubs would be identifying talented players that aren't getting a go. Their four developing 200+cm players must have been "eyed" from outside, and could be good trading material for a talented developing midfielder elsewhere. Time will tell.
Conclusions
Clearly, not all club lists are the same, and they vary in distribution of age groups and height groups. The distribution of age groups can influence the type of game-style that a team plays. For example, Geelong, with a disproportionate number of "twilight" players will play a measured possession game, while younger lists, like Melbourne and Port Adelaide, with younger legs are able to play tear-away running games that aim to run older or lesser teams off their feet. Sometimes, age can overcome a particular game-style. For example, Richmond continues to try to play in a hard-running tear-away style, reminiscent of 2017, when the core list was four years younger. It worked again in 2019 and 2020. But, in 2021, their current core list appears too old to play the same way and their decline seems predictable. Westcoast and Collingwood appear to be suffering similar declines as Richmond due to aging lists.
Conversely, Greater Western Sydney has reinvented itself by transforming their list into a younger hard-running type. Sydney, to a lesser extent, appears to be going through the same transformation. Carlton and Essendon also appear to be teams well-developed in their rebuilds and appear to have optimism around their futures around their lists. For Carlton, their off-field situation appears a greater challenge.
Also, we can spot opportunities for trading targets around the different lists. For example, Adelaide appears to have an over-abundance of junior "mobile talls" and can't give adequate opportunity to them all. Other clubs will identify these players as targets. Similarly, Brisbane has an excess of junior "smaller and taller mediums", Fremantle has an excess of junior "taller-mediums", Melbourne and Port Adelaide have an excess of "smalls", while Hawthorn and North Melbourne's lists have their own unique characteristics that might interest preying clubs.
With finals beginning next week, it is interesting to compare the lists to where the trends in club performances are heading. Although, I prefer predicting a premiership list at the beginning of a season, before too many other factors influence a decision. But, I do prefer Melbourne and Port Adelaide for their younger, hard-running lists at present, followed by Essendon and Carlton in a few years time.
Conversely, Greater Western Sydney has reinvented itself by transforming their list into a younger hard-running type. Sydney, to a lesser extent, appears to be going through the same transformation. Carlton and Essendon also appear to be teams well-developed in their rebuilds and appear to have optimism around their futures around their lists. For Carlton, their off-field situation appears a greater challenge.
Also, we can spot opportunities for trading targets around the different lists. For example, Adelaide appears to have an over-abundance of junior "mobile talls" and can't give adequate opportunity to them all. Other clubs will identify these players as targets. Similarly, Brisbane has an excess of junior "smaller and taller mediums", Fremantle has an excess of junior "taller-mediums", Melbourne and Port Adelaide have an excess of "smalls", while Hawthorn and North Melbourne's lists have their own unique characteristics that might interest preying clubs.
With finals beginning next week, it is interesting to compare the lists to where the trends in club performances are heading. Although, I prefer predicting a premiership list at the beginning of a season, before too many other factors influence a decision. But, I do prefer Melbourne and Port Adelaide for their younger, hard-running lists at present, followed by Essendon and Carlton in a few years time.