It’s the old athlete versus footballer debate. The player who dominates testing and leaps up draft charts. And then the contrary, the player whose football has done the talking, but who doesn’t test well at all. What holds greater weight?
 
For Gold Coast SUNS list manager Scott Clayton, it’s crucial to examine all the evidence at your disposal before making a decision. The veteran talent identifier describes the art of recruiting as a pendulum, with a balance between naked eye consideration and data analysis.
 
When Clayton begun recruiting after his playing days, the access to data was minimal and very basic. Now, it is in depth and measures almost everything you can think of. And whilst Clayton believe it is still important to pass judgement on what you see with your own two eyes, analysis has grown in importance over time.
 
“We collate and collect a massive amount of data in regards to their physical conditioning and all those things,” Clayton told Melbourne radio station SEN on Monday morning.
 
“But it’s a bit of a pendulum – we describe it as – at one end you’ve got the old school with the naked eye and thin slice and then right up the other end you’ve got just pure analytics and someone who wouldn’t even go to the footy but could go: pick this bloke because of this.
 
“I think the pendulum swings and we try to get it in the middle there somewhere. We’ve got some evidence of what we see and what we feel and what we think, so it’s a really interesting area because clearly in all forms of business, analytics is getting bigger.”
 
When it comes to analysing players on their performances, Clayton says it is critical to ensure you are measuring them in terms of roles that you want them to play, not placing them all in the same basket.
 
In the case of Jarrad Grant, Gold Coast has made their intentions public, earmarking him for a role as a third tall, despite the former Western Bulldog spending the duration of 2015 on a wing. In this case, measuring his performance on a wing is almost irrelevant because he has been recruited to play in attack.
 
“It can’t be that broad because there’s different roles and numbers that fit some role don’t fit the other so you’ve got to be actually careful and very good at what you’re actually looking for and what you’re trying to prove,” Clayton said.
 
“Just a broad sweep certainly won't work. For a certain role you do need certain things that can be proven with some data.”
 
The numbers can tell only one side of the story, according to Clayton, and if you are prepared to dig a little deeper you might unearth factors behind why the numbers aren’t what you are after. Some of the results may be surprising.
 
“There might be something behind the numbers. For instance, Brian Lake is a great example in my mind who ran a really poor beep and you saw in games though just something (special),” Clayton said.
 
“The numbers said don’t go near him. But when you looked further, he had a medical condition, he had sleep apnoea and some medical issues that you just went wow, if we can do this, this guys going to improve out of sight.
 
“So there’s many instances of that or someone who just hasn’t been in a reasonable program – might be the tyranny of distance or whatever it is, lives somewhere very remote.
 
“Everyone’s an individual and everyone’s got their own story, so that’s what you’re looking for.”