-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 9
The Golden Ticket - Corporate tickets, functions, Open Air Boxes at the Adelaide Oval, ENGIE, Gabba, MCG, Marvel, Optus & People First Stadiums. Corporate Suites at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
8 Winner: myblueroan
Opinion Non-Crows AFL 12: It's the confectionery with 1000 uses
- Thread starter screech
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
Covers the ground better but SFA genuine impact.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Posts
- 10,894
- Reaction score
- 1,095
- Location
- rAdelaide
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide United, Leeds United
I thought Port were in a bit of strife only a couple of weeks ago but all of a sudden they have a pretty handy core of younger players in Bergman, JHF, Butters and Rozee in the midfield and Georgiadis up forward, also a big fan of Visentini.
Gross.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
The even more sensible thing would be to end this ridiculous farce where trading in a former first-round selection gets to count as taking a first-round pick in the draft.
By that logic, clubs could just get around it by finding any first-round selection who hasn't worked out after a couple years, and offering peanuts to bring them in for a year.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2019
- Posts
- 46,551
- Reaction score
- 78,252
- Location
- Victorian Central Highlands
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Panthers, GWV Rebels, Central Augusta
Rather not, we don't need ball burners, he finds it but kicking is very very average.
Would pay big overs for what he provides.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Posts
- 56,970
- Reaction score
- 42,196
- Location
- Canberra
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Norwood, Adelaide Crows
I don't have a problem with that, provided their original draft date was inside the AFL's rolling 4-year window.
At that point, why even have the rule at all?
Couple of the ‘missing pieces’ are going not too bad as well. Think they need Marshall to come back and be as good as he’s looked at times and they could return back up the ladder.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2019
- Posts
- 46,551
- Reaction score
- 78,252
- Location
- Victorian Central Highlands
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Panthers, GWV Rebels, Central Augusta
How many times has Walsh actually done that?
At ther same age 10x the player Crouch is,....put down the bong.
Sam Walsh and Matt Crouch AFL Stats Comparison
Sam Walsh and Matt Crouch AFL Stats Comparison.
www.footywire.com
Last edited:
If they want to top up their list with trash, what’s the problem? Vader’s proposal seems a very logical way to approach it.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Posts
- 56,970
- Reaction score
- 42,196
- Location
- Canberra
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Norwood, Adelaide Crows
We're talking about 1st, 2nd or 3rd year players here. At this point in their careers their underage performances, which were good enough to see them drafted in the 1st round, are still relevant to how they are perceived. They are still rated largely on potential, rather than historic achievements at the senior level.
Note that a 4th year player (e.g. NWM) doesn't qualify for the AFL's 4-year window. A player in their 4th year was drafted in 2021, whereas the rolling window is now 2022/23/24/25.
The AFL have included him in their national indigenous academy so I don't think that is an issue
It’s to make sure that clubs are refreshing their lists with a minimum of 2 first rounders every 4 years. Trading in first rounders from recent drafts meets the objective.
Let's be sensible, though. Clubs aren't going to just avoid drafting players from the first round for the sake of it. They're not stupid. If they're not using their first-round selections at the draft, it's because they're trading them for established players. The point is, the AFL wants to dissuade clubs from trading away all of their first round picks over a period time for established players.
That can easily be gotten around by doing exactly that - future trading away all of your first round selections for established players - and then using chicken feed to bring in failed first round selections from previous years to meet the requirement.
At that point... why have the requirement at all?
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2022
- Posts
- 8,865
- Reaction score
- 12,063
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
To be fair, neither of them may do that in the future. Walsh's body seems really smashed.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Posts
- 56,970
- Reaction score
- 42,196
- Location
- Canberra
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Norwood, Adelaide Crows
At what point though are they judged to be "failed first round selections"? McAsey is an exceptional case, but rarely would this judgement be made inside a player's first 3 years in the system. It's only players in years 1-3 who are eligible for the rolling 4-year window.
Further, how many 1-3 year players are traded, particularly 1st round draftees? JHF wanting out after only 1 year is truly exceptional.
The reality is that what you're railing against is almost vanishingly rare.
Damn
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2000
- Posts
- 30,027
- Reaction score
- 28,606
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
They may go up the ladder but not a premiership threat.
Losing 1st round picks the last few years will bite them in the arse.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
I don’t think clubs are going to be wasting 2nd and 3rd rounders every picks on past first round players that they don’t rate just to meet the requirements of the rule. And if they do, what’s the big deal, they’re only handicapping themselves.
It’s really only last year’s that was diabolical though.
...then, why bother having the rule?
The rule is either worth having, or it's not. If it's worth having, then it should be enforced properly without allowing loopholes to get around the entire point of the rule. And if it's not worth having, then don't have it.
I guarantee you, if a club has the option to trade in a gun player for a first round selection, but are unable to do so because of the AFL rules... if they are given the option to get around the requirement by also trading in a failed first round selection for a late pick, they're going to take it.
Last edited:
Because for the 17 other clubs that don’t, it’s serving its purpose. Noting there’s still not a single instance of this happening.
Well, no... because the rare times the rule has been relevant, the AFL has allowed random loopholes like "you traded for someone last year so that counts now, even though it didn't in the original reading of the rule".
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2000
- Posts
- 30,027
- Reaction score
- 28,606
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Yes, he has done it twice - in 2018 (vs North Melbourne) and 2019 (vs Western Bulldogs).
Years ago.
- Status
Similar threads
