One of the themes of this article is the use of objective measurements (e.g., speed) to determine if a player should be selected. While I agree that objective measurements have strong benefits, I think that they also have weaknesses as well.
The positives include a justifiable reason why one player is picked over another. If one receiver races another and finishes 10 metres ahead in a 40 metre sprint, then I think that everyone would agree that the faster player is a better selection based solely on that objective measurement. If drops are recorded, players who drop fewer passes will be preferred over players who drop passes more often and so on.
The annual NFL combine (how prospective players are evaluated by teams prior to the gridiron draft) places significant emphasis on metrics. However, the results are very much hit or miss. Players who are ranked highly and drafted early routinely flame out and are out of the league in a couple of years.
The most famous case of misleading objective measurements is a quarterback who literally finished last in speed, arm strength, etc. As a result of the poor metrics, the player received a poor evaluation and therefore was the 199th player chosen. Six quarterbacks were taken ahead of him. Fortunately, Tom Brady’s leadership skills were much more important than his speed and arm strength and he became arguably the most successful player in NFL history.
My objective is not to denigrate objective measurements. I think that they are very useful in many circumstances. However, I don’t think they’re an end in themselves. Leadership, willingness to work within a team structure, openness to learning and so on cannot be measured and can be difficult to evaluate in a single weekend.
All that said, there would be understandable confusion if a person with worse objective measurements is chosen because of better soft skills. There is an onus on selectors to be open and honest about why players were selected or cut. I think we’re in broad agreement on this point. The question is how to achieve it.
p.s., I definitely support the idea of taking videos during the selections. This is a low-cost solution which is easy to implement and I think will be very helpful during post-selection discussions about why players were and weren’t chosen for the team.
Hi Laura - Thanks for this very informative article. In your opinion (For National team Selection) what is the ideal number of selection events AND what is the ideal number of participants to select a team of 20. Cheers Woodie
One of the themes of this article is the use of objective measurements (e.g., speed) to determine if a player should be selected. While I agree that objective measurements have strong benefits, I think that they also have weaknesses as well.
The positives include a justifiable reason why one player is picked over another. If one receiver races another and finishes 10 metres ahead in a 40 metre sprint, then I think that everyone would agree that the faster player is a better selection based solely on that objective measurement. If drops are recorded, players who drop fewer passes will be preferred over players who drop passes more often and so on.
The annual NFL combine (how prospective players are evaluated by teams prior to the gridiron draft) places significant emphasis on metrics. However, the results are very much hit or miss. Players who are ranked highly and drafted early routinely flame out and are out of the league in a couple of years.
The most famous case of misleading objective measurements is a quarterback who literally finished last in speed, arm strength, etc. As a result of the poor metrics, the player received a poor evaluation and therefore was the 199th player chosen. Six quarterbacks were taken ahead of him. Fortunately, Tom Brady’s leadership skills were much more important than his speed and arm strength and he became arguably the most successful player in NFL history.
My objective is not to denigrate objective measurements. I think that they are very useful in many circumstances. However, I don’t think they’re an end in themselves. Leadership, willingness to work within a team structure, openness to learning and so on cannot be measured and can be difficult to evaluate in a single weekend.
All that said, there would be understandable confusion if a person with worse objective measurements is chosen because of better soft skills. There is an onus on selectors to be open and honest about why players were selected or cut. I think we’re in broad agreement on this point. The question is how to achieve it.
p.s., I definitely support the idea of taking videos during the selections. This is a low-cost solution which is easy to implement and I think will be very helpful during post-selection discussions about why players were and weren’t chosen for the team.
Hi Laura - Thanks for this very informative article. In your opinion (For National team Selection) what is the ideal number of selection events AND what is the ideal number of participants to select a team of 20. Cheers Woodie