- Aug 7, 2015
- 10,634
- 17,351
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Q. Why didn't AFC manage to draft Mattaes Phillipou?
A: TL;DR It's clear AFC likely valued IR more than MP otherwise AFC could have held on to pick5 at the risk of missing out on IR.
Once we gave up pick5, AFC either couldn't trade back into an early enough pick for MP before Saints' pick, or simply preferred to hang on to 2023 r1 pick.
(initial guess at reasons - will update here if needed after some discussion)
The question of why AFC did not get into a position to draft Matt Phillipou (MP) in 2022 comes up frequently, especially as MP seems to be doing well as that big bodied midfielder that we on Bigfooty think we need.
Without someone from the club spilling the beans, it looked from the outside that the AFC didn't try very hard to get into a position to draft MP.
Below are some points to consider in trying to figure out why things turned as they have.
<.1.> Izak Rankine (IR) asked GC be treated fairly or he stays
It has been reported/suggested IR asked that a fair trade GC is made for him or he will stay in GC.
<.2.> GC didn't want a 2023 pick due to Academy players
This doesn't really make sense because GC will need points to pay for their Academy players, especially if they do end up attracting r1 bids. For 3 such players, having high value picks must be preferable to trying to collect multiple lower picks to combine - especially as the number of picks a club can take into draft is limited to how many free list spots they have.
Some think AFC should have been more ruthless and insisted on GC accepting AFC's 2023 r1 pick for IR but if <.1.> is true, AFC had no choice but accept GC's demand for 2022 pick 5 for IR.
It seems likely AFC valued IR more than MP as AFC could have insisted on hanging on to pick 5 at the risk of missing out on IR.
<.3.> Ess rumoured to be interested in MP with pick 4.
This might have made AFC more willing to part with pick 5 for IR as if AFC managed to hold on to pick 5 (by paying with 2023 r1 pick) for IR but Ess drafts MP anyway, that would have been a wasted effort.
<.4.> Which clubs have picks after Ess' & before Saints' ?
Could AFC have traded for 2022 r1 pick with say our F1 pick (and an extra F2 pick) once Ess did not pick MP?
There seemed to be a common view at the time that the 2023 draft was looking like a very strong draft and clubs did seem to be keen to trade out of the 2022 draft and into 2023 so would think AFC might have been able to line up a trade with club for a pick to get MP should he slip down the draft order.
The clubs and picks after Ess' are as follows.
GC (from AFC) - we wouldn't have been able to trade for this pick during draft night (rules!)
Haw - pretty much in a rebuild so wouldn't want a 2023 pick.
Gee (from GC) - committed a lot to get pick from GC
WCE - also pretty much in a rebuild so wouldn't want a 2023 pick
StK - pounced on MP when they could, probably wouldn't want a 2023 pick.
This likely shows AFC would have had a tough time trading for a pick to get MP before Saints did.
<.5.> AFC valued 2023 r1 more than MP
Could it be AFC valued who they might be able to pick with their 2023 r1 pick more highly than pick 5 in 2022 or MP?
Could this be the case? There were rumours (though disputed) that there were "red flags" around MP.
<.6.> Does the AFC feel the need for a big mid?
Or is it really that we on Bigfooty think we need big bodied midfielder?
Our current up and coming, big-gish bodied mids include Pedlar (183cm), Schoenberg (183), Dowling (187cm), Bond (185cm) and Nankervis (191cm) as a potential mid.
<.7.> Maybe 2023 r1 pick was set aside for a trade?
Is it possible our plan for this upcoming trade period was already set in stone? Will Day?
If we end up doing this then that was a very possible the reason.
.
A: TL;DR It's clear AFC likely valued IR more than MP otherwise AFC could have held on to pick5 at the risk of missing out on IR.
Once we gave up pick5, AFC either couldn't trade back into an early enough pick for MP before Saints' pick, or simply preferred to hang on to 2023 r1 pick.
(initial guess at reasons - will update here if needed after some discussion)
The question of why AFC did not get into a position to draft Matt Phillipou (MP) in 2022 comes up frequently, especially as MP seems to be doing well as that big bodied midfielder that we on Bigfooty think we need.
Without someone from the club spilling the beans, it looked from the outside that the AFC didn't try very hard to get into a position to draft MP.
Below are some points to consider in trying to figure out why things turned as they have.
<.1.> Izak Rankine (IR) asked GC be treated fairly or he stays
It has been reported/suggested IR asked that a fair trade GC is made for him or he will stay in GC.
<.2.> GC didn't want a 2023 pick due to Academy players
This doesn't really make sense because GC will need points to pay for their Academy players, especially if they do end up attracting r1 bids. For 3 such players, having high value picks must be preferable to trying to collect multiple lower picks to combine - especially as the number of picks a club can take into draft is limited to how many free list spots they have.
Some think AFC should have been more ruthless and insisted on GC accepting AFC's 2023 r1 pick for IR but if <.1.> is true, AFC had no choice but accept GC's demand for 2022 pick 5 for IR.
It seems likely AFC valued IR more than MP as AFC could have insisted on hanging on to pick 5 at the risk of missing out on IR.
<.3.> Ess rumoured to be interested in MP with pick 4.
This might have made AFC more willing to part with pick 5 for IR as if AFC managed to hold on to pick 5 (by paying with 2023 r1 pick) for IR but Ess drafts MP anyway, that would have been a wasted effort.
<.4.> Which clubs have picks after Ess' & before Saints' ?
Could AFC have traded for 2022 r1 pick with say our F1 pick (and an extra F2 pick) once Ess did not pick MP?
There seemed to be a common view at the time that the 2023 draft was looking like a very strong draft and clubs did seem to be keen to trade out of the 2022 draft and into 2023 so would think AFC might have been able to line up a trade with club for a pick to get MP should he slip down the draft order.
The clubs and picks after Ess' are as follows.
GC (from AFC) - we wouldn't have been able to trade for this pick during draft night (rules!)
Haw - pretty much in a rebuild so wouldn't want a 2023 pick.
Gee (from GC) - committed a lot to get pick from GC
WCE - also pretty much in a rebuild so wouldn't want a 2023 pick
StK - pounced on MP when they could, probably wouldn't want a 2023 pick.
This likely shows AFC would have had a tough time trading for a pick to get MP before Saints did.
<.5.> AFC valued 2023 r1 more than MP
Could it be AFC valued who they might be able to pick with their 2023 r1 pick more highly than pick 5 in 2022 or MP?
Could this be the case? There were rumours (though disputed) that there were "red flags" around MP.
Volbeat, who has a pretty good record for Crows rumours in the past said there were "redflags" with MP from his sources though he didn't know what they were exactly.
Meanwhile TAFKATMS, who also has a good record (and possibly is a past Crows player) had the opposite view.
Volbeat post:
TAFKATMS post:
Meanwhile TAFKATMS, who also has a good record (and possibly is a past Crows player) had the opposite view.
Volbeat post:
TAFKATMS post:
<.6.> Does the AFC feel the need for a big mid?
Or is it really that we on Bigfooty think we need big bodied midfielder?
Our current up and coming, big-gish bodied mids include Pedlar (183cm), Schoenberg (183), Dowling (187cm), Bond (185cm) and Nankervis (191cm) as a potential mid.
<.7.> Maybe 2023 r1 pick was set aside for a trade?
Is it possible our plan for this upcoming trade period was already set in stone? Will Day?
If we end up doing this then that was a very possible the reason.
.
Last edited:
Ive seen him play last year and he had TALENT.
