There is such a thing as trying to bite off too much.
For about the last decade HPN has been covering the AFL Draft and Trade cycle. This includes bringing the “consensus phantom draft” concept to the AFL landscape from US sport.
It’s usually amongst HPN’s most read and discussed work, either here or on the ABC.
However since HPN started doing CPDs our broader work has evolved. HPN’s knowledge of the game and the broader systems that underpin it has significantly grown.
That means HPN is covering a lot more footy week to week, month to month.
Something had to give.
Others have also compared major phantoms, such as Dan (@ddinardo17) on Twitter’s compilation here:
A quick analysis reveals that the CPD is probably a good place to start cutting – for now at least. Here’s a few brief reasons why.
- Increasing homogenisation
The drafts are continuing to coalesce together – increasingly so. There are one or two “thought leaders” in the space that others are appearing to ape. As such, consensus is easier to find as it tends to follow a very limited number of sources.
That means the CPD might get more accurate but will also tell us less.
- The shift to information-sharing
It’s worth reflecting on what a phantom draft is. Primarily, it’s a prediction on where clubs will draft players.
It’s also worth thinking of the information inputs that can go into this. Largely, they can be grouped into a couple of different camps – either direct intelligence or informed opinions.
Most phantoms used to fall into the latter camp. They were often made up of a bleed between an expert look at a side’s current list profile and a subjective analysis of the young players in the draft crop. In these phantoms, personal opinion shines more.
The former category is much rarer, but also far more accurate. Some journalists have wide-ranging intelligence on the plans of clubs, thanks to effective and extensive networks, including with decision-makers and people connected with them.
Some journalists have solid connections with agents, who may also have further information on club contact with players and sometimes what their camps have been told.
Some journalists have been known to run favourable stories on behalf of clubs and agents – a part of the trade.
Very few published phantom drafts are purely in one camp or the other. But the information-sharing phantoms are increasingly more accurate than the opinion-driven type.
The rise of accuracy of the major phantoms has also led to a bunch of “shadow boxing” and fake leaks. Clubs are becoming increasingly aware of the accuracy of some phantoms, leading to false information being distributed to try to throw clubs off, often in the service of getting players to slide to them, or facilitate pick trades.
HPN isn’t making a judgement whether this is a good or bad thing – merely that it exists.
- The rise of the power rankings
In the place of the opinion-based phantom comes the “power rankings”, another US sport export. That’s where these experts can let their true values on young talent be known.
This further decouples phantom drafts from opinion, and increases the importance of accuracy.
What now?
All of this written above has two purposes. It’s a mea culpa for being stretched too thin, but also an explanation about why consensus phantoms matter less than ever.
This isn’t a forever farewell to the concept, but definitely one for now.